LIBRARY  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


324.773 
Un3c 
pt .1-4 

I  .  H  .  S  . 


Ms 

L. - - — - ->rr-r-- 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/chargesrelativet00unit_0 


*324.772 

51st  Congress, 

3d  Session. 


CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM 

LORIMER. 

December  21,  1910. — Ordered  to  be  printed. 


SENATE. 


I 


Report 
No.  942. 


Ill  I;''  If  ;>  l  V  5 

Mr.  Burrows,  from  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  sub¬ 
mitted  the  following 

REPORT. 


[To  accompany  S.  Res.  No.  247.] 

The  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  to  whom  was  referred 
certain  charges  relating  to  the  election  of  William  Lorimer,  a  Senator 
from  the  State  of  Illinois,  by  the  legislature  of  that  State,  have  had 
the  same  under  consideration,  and  submit  the  following  report: 

On  the  7th  day  of  June,  1910,  there  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Privileges  and  Elections  a  memorial  signed  by  one  Llinord  W. 
Barnes,  as  president  of  the  Legislative  Voters  League,  of  Chicago, 
HI  alleging  in  substance  that  the  election  of  William  Lorimer,  a 
Senator  from  the  State  of  Illinois,  was  secured  by  bribery.  These 
charges  are  set  forth  at  length  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  tor 

JU<On  the^20th  day  of  June,  1910,  the  Senate  adopted  a  resolution  au¬ 
thorizing  and  directing  said  committee,  or  any  subcommittee  thereof, 
to  investigate  said  charges.  In  pursuance  of  the  authority  conferred 
and  direction  given  by  the  Senate  in  said  resolution,  a  subcommittee 
was  appointed,  consisting  of  Mr.  Burrows,  chairman,  Mr.  Gamble, 
Mr.  Heybum,  Mr.  Bulkeley,  Mr.  Frazier,  Mr.  Paynter,  and  Mr. 

^I^was  thought  by  the  subcommittee  to  be  advisable  to  make  this 
investiaation  at  the  city  of  Chicago,  in  the  State  of  Illinois  Accord¬ 
ingly  tfie  subcommittee  met  in  that  city  on  the  20th  of  September, 
1910,  and  proceeded  to  execute  the  order  of  the  Senate. 

A  large  number  of  witnesses  were  examined  and  all  the  a\ailabl . 
information  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  subcommittee  would  be  of 
anv  value  in  the  investigation,  was  obtained  and  considered. 

It  appears  from  the  evidence  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  a 

tor  from  the  State  of  Illinois  on  the  26th  day  of  May,  1909,  bj  joint 
assembly  of  the  two  houses  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  oT 


2 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Illinois,  receiving  108  votes  out  of  202  that  were  cast  for  the  several 
candidates  for  that  office,  as  follows: 


Albert  J.  Hopkins _  70 

William  Lorimer _  108 

Lawrence  B.  Stringer _  24 


VOTES  REQUIRED  TO  ELECT. 

The  question  is  raised  by  counsel  whether  the  language  of  the 
statute  regulating  the  election  of  United  States  Senators  requires 
that  in  order  to  elect  a  Senator  the  person  elected  must  receive  a 
majority  of  the  votes  of  all  the  members  elected  to  each  house  of  the 
legislature,  or  whether  it  is  sufficient  if  one  person  receives  a  ma¬ 
jority  of  all  the  votes  cast  in  the  joint  assembly,  “a  majority  of  all 
the;  members  elected  to  both  houses  being  present  and  voting.”  This 
question  seems  to  have  been  decided  by  the  Senate  in  the  case  of  Lap- 
Aam  and  Miller  (Senate  Election  Cases,  697).  In  that  case  it  was 
leld  that  a  majority  of  a  quorum  of  each  house  is  sufficient  to  elect, 
and  in  that  decision  the  committee  concur. 

BRIBERY. 

In  a  number  of  cases  that  have  been  before  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  it  has  been  held  that  to  invalidate  the  election  of  a  Senator  on 
account  of  bribery  it  must  be  made  to  appear  either — 

(1)  That  the  person  elected  participated  in  one  or  more  acts  of 
bribery  or  attempted  bribery,  or  sanctioned  or  encouraged  the  same ;  or 

(2)  That  by  bribery  or  corrupt  practices  enough  votes  were  ob¬ 
tained  for  him  to  change  the  result  of  the  election. 

At  what  was  practically  the  outset  of  the  investigation,  counsel 
for  the  Chicago  Tribune  (who  conducted  the  inquiry  against  Senator 
Lorimer)  announced  that  he  did  not  expect  to  connect  Senator  Lori¬ 
mer  with  any  acts  of  bribery,  and  upon  this  point  the  following  took 
place  (Record,  p.  66)  : 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  suggest  it  might  be  well  for  you  here  to  state 
what  you  expect  to  prove,  in  order  that  we  may  apply  the  law  as  to  such 
proof. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  expect  to  prove - 

Senator  Bulkeley.  Do  you  expect  to  connect  Mr.  Lorimer  with  this? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir;  not  in  that  way  at  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is,  you  do  not  intend  to  connect  Senator  Lorimer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  personally  do  not  intend  to  connect  Senator  .Lorimer.  The 
statement  made  here  by  the  witnesses  that  they  had  some  talk  with  Mr.  Lori¬ 
mer,  the  committee  will  please  understand,  of  course,  these  witnesses,  I  have 
never  talked  with — never  talked  with  but  two  of  the  witnesses  who  will  be 
called  upon  the  witness  stand. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  do  not  claim  that  any  witness  will  say  that  he  ever 
talked  with  Senator  Lorimer  about  money? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  know  of  no  one. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  say,  in  that  connection,  you  said  that  they  would  show 
that  they  had  some  conversation  with  Senator  Lorimer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  they  had,  but  what  that  conversation  was  I  do  not  knowT. 

Judge  Hanecy.  But  not  in  relation  to  the  payment  of  money  or  any  corrupt 
practice,  you  do  not  mean? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  should  say  not. 

And  that  he  did  not  contend  that  “  he  (Senator  Lorimer)  had  any¬ 
thing  to  do  with  it.”  (Record,  p.  80.) 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


3 


It  will  be  remembered  that  on  the  28th  of  May,  1910,  shortly  after 
the  charges  appeared  in  the  public  press,  Senator  Lorimer  in  the 
open  Senate  denied  any  act  of  bribery  on  his  part  in  connection  with 
his  election  in  the  most  emphatic  terms,  and  demanded  an  investiga¬ 
tion  by  presenting  the  following  resolution  (Cong.  Record,  vol.  45, 
pt.  7,  p.  7020)  :  • 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

May  28,  1910. 

Mr.  Lorimer  submitted  the  following  resolution ;  which  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  to  Audit  and  Control  the  Contingent  Expenses  of  the  Senate : 

“  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  be  directed  to 
examine  the  allegations  recently  made  in  the  public  press,  charging  that 
bribery  and  corruption  were  practiced  in  the  election  of  William  Lorimer  to  a 
seat  in  the  United  States  Senate,  and  to  ascertain  the  facts  in  connection  with 
these  charges,  and  report  as  early  as  possible ;  and  for  that  purpose  the  com¬ 
mittee  shall  have  authority  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  to  employ  a  stenog¬ 
rapher  and  such  other  additional  help  as  it  shall  deem  necessary ;  and  the 
committee  is  authorized  to  act  through  a  subcommittee ;  and  its  expense  shall' 
be  paid  from  the  contingent  fund  of  the  Senate.” 

It  should  further  be  stated  that  there  was  no  testimony  offered 
during  the  investigation  which  would  tend  in  the  remotest  degree  to 
implicate  Senator  Lorimer  in  any  personal  act  of  bribery  or  attempted 
bribery  or  corrupt  practices  of  any  nature. 

It  is  claimed,  however,  that  several  members  of  the  legislature  were, 
in  fact,  bribed  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  and  if  established  it  remains 
to  inquire  whether  a  sufficient  number  of  members  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State  of  Illinois  were  bribed  to  vote  for  Senator 
Lorimer  to  render  his  election  to  that  office  invalid. 

It  was  to  this  question  that  the  evidence  taken  on  the  investigation 
was  chiefty  directed  and  the  subcommittee,  who  made  the  investiga¬ 
tion,  not  only  heard  the  testimony  but  observed  the  witnesses  while 
on  the  stand,  their  demeanor  while  testifying,  their  apparent  candor 
or  want  of  candor  in  giving  their  testimony,  and  other  indicia  of  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  the  story  they  were  telling. 

Four  members  of  the  general  assembly  which  elected  Mr.  Lorimer 
testified  to  receiving  money  as  a  consideration  for  their  votes.  The 
members  who  thus  confessed  their  own  infamy  were  Charles  A. 
White,  Michael  Link,  H.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer,  and  Daniel  W.  Holstlaw. 

CHARLES  A.  WHITE. 

The  chief  of  these  self-accusers  and  the  one  on  whose  testimony 
the  whole  fabric  of  the  accusation  largely  depends  was  Charles  A. 
White,  a  member  of  the  lower  house  of  the  Illinois  General  Assembly. 
White  seems  to  have  developed  early  in  his  legislative  career  an  in¬ 
satiable  desire  to  secure  a  pecuniary  compensation  for  his  official  acts, 
and  he  also  appears  to  have  suspected  his  fellow  members  of  the 
general  assembly  of  being  as  corrupt  as  himself.  He  endeavored  to 
induce  the  chairman  of  an  important  committee  to  defer  reporting 
a  bill  in  order  to  extort  money  from  those  who  were  interested  in  its 
passage.  After  Mr.  Lorimer  had  been  elected  to  the  Senate,  White 
tried  to  obtain  information  from  another  member  of  the  house 
whether  money  had  not  been  used  to  promote  Senator  Lorimer’s  elec¬ 
tion.  This  inquiry  not  only  shows  Lis  corrupt  character,  but  also 
casts  suspicion  upon  the  truth  of  his  story  that  he  had  been  bribed 
to  vote  for  the  successful  candidate  for  Senator. 


4 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


After  wasting  his  salary  and  other  means  in  riotous  living,  White 
appears  to  have  conceived  the  plan  of  claiming  to  have  been  bribed  in 
connection  with  the  senatorial  election  as  a  basis  for  extorting  money 
from  Senator  Lorimer.  This  purpose  he  reveals  to  two  of  his  friends 
and  then  attempts  to  put  it  into  execution.  In  this  he  signally  fails, 
as  appears  from  the  following  correspondence : 

O’Fallon,  III.,  12-4-09. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Lorimer, 

Washington,  D.  G. 

My  Dear  Sir  :  I  am  preparing  to  place  before  the  people  of  this  country  an 
article  I  have  written  giving  my  true  experience  as  a  member  of  tbe  Illinois 
legislature.  Tbe  article  will  appear  either  in  book  form  or  will  be  published  in 
one  of  the  largest  magazines  in  the  United  States. 

I  have  just  completed  the  manuscript,  which  contains  about  30,000  words, 
giving  in  detail  my  absolutely  true  experiences  as  a  member  of  the  forty-sixth 
general  assembly.  As  yet  I  have  not  closed  a  deal  with  any  publishing  house, 
but  when  my  terms  are  acceptable  will  dispose  of  it. 

I  have  been  offered  a  sum  sufficient  to  value  the  manuscript  at  about  $2.50 
per  word. 

Believing  that  you  would  be  more  than  deeply  interested  in  the  works  and 
actions  of  the  members  of  the  last  session  of  the  Illinois  legislature,  owing  to 
the  fact  that  possibly  your  experience  with  that  general  assembly  will  be  one 
of  the  questions  freely  discussed,  and  assuring  you  that  I  have  severed  all 
connections  with  the  party  leaders,  as  I  am  to  be  independent  in  the  future  in 
all  my  political  dealings, 

I  am,  respectfully,  yours,  Chas.  A.  White. 

(Record,  p.  125.) 


To  this  communication  Senator  Lorimer  replied  as  follows: 

Hon.  Charles  A.  White,  O'Fallon,  III. 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  December  4  in  which  you 
advise  me  that  you  have  manuscript  ready  to  place  with  publishers  treating 
of  your  experience  as  a  member  of  the  Illinois  Legislature. 

I  would  be  very  glad  indeed  to  know  of  your  success  as  an  author. 

With  kindest  personal  regards,  I  am, 

Very  truly  yours,  William  Lorimer. 

(Record,  p.  164.) 

Questioned  by  the  committee  as  to  his  purpose  in  writing  Senator 
Lorimer,  Mr.  White  testified : 

Senator  Paynter.  If  I  understood  you,  Mr.  White,  correctly,  that  you  hoped 
to  get  a  letter  from  Senator  Lorimer  that  you  could  use  in  connection  with 
this  publication? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  by  that,  I  suppose  that  you  expected  a  letter  from  Senator  Lorimer 
that  might  aid  to  support  your  charges.  Is  that  the  hope  you  had  in  the 
matter? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  had  no  evidence  against  Senator  Lorimer  directly,  and 
had  no  dealings  with  him. 

Q.  The  letter  recites  in  substance,  I  do  not  remember  the  exact  language, 
that  you  had  been  made  an  offer  or  some  inducement  had  been  held  out  that 
indicated  that  the  manuscript  was  worth  $2.25  a  word — or  $2.50  a  word,  I 
mean.  That  is  the  language  of  it,  “  I  have  been  offered  a  sum  sufficient  to 
value  the  manuscript  at  about  $2.50  per  word.”  Suppose  that  Senator  Lorimer 
had  placed  the  same  value  upon  the  manuscript  that  you  did,  and  had  offered  ;; 
you  $75,000,  would  you  have  taken  it? — A.  I  would  have  let  him  have  the  t 
manuscript. 

Q.  For  $75,000.  Would  you  have  accepted  $75,000  if  he  had  offered  it  to 
you? — A.  I  don’t  think  I  would;  if  I  had  I  might  have  turned  it  over  to  some-  : 
body  else. 

Q.  You  would  have  turned  the  money  over  to  some  one  else? — A.  I  might 
have  done  that. 

(Record,  p.  126.) 


ELECTION  OP  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


5 


Thereafter,  Mr.  White  attempted  to  sell  his  story  to  eastern  pub¬ 
lications  and  subsequently  did  contract  to  sell  it  to  the  Chicago 
Tribune  for  the  sum  of  $3,500,  a  part  of  White’s  agreement  being  that 
he  would  assist  in  substantiating  the  correctness  of  his  story.  This 
agreement  was  reduced  to  writing  and  is  as  follows : 

[Exhibit  5.] 

The  Chicago  Tribune,  Office  of  Publisher, 

Chicago,  III.,  April  29,  1910. 

To  Charles  A.  White: 

You  offered  to  sell  to  us  for  publication  a  story  written  by  you,  which  story 
gives  your  experiences  while  a  member  of  the  house  of  representatives  of 
Illinois  during  1909-10,  and  giving  also  certain  information  as  to  what  trans¬ 
pired  by  reason  of  your  voting  for  certain  measures,  etc.,  while  a  member  of  such 
house. 

We  refused  to  pay  you  for  that  story  or  to  print  the  same  unless  such  story 
was  verified  and  corroborated  by  persons  selected  by  The  Tribune. 

For  more  than  four  weeks  we,  with  your  cooperation,  through  different  agen¬ 
cies,  have  caused  your  story  to  be  fully  investigated. 

For  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  hereby  granted  by  you  to  the  Tribune  Com¬ 
pany  to  publish  this  story,  or  a  revision  thereof  or  excerpts  therefrom  in  the 
Chicago  Tribune  and  copyright  it  either  in  your  name  or  in  that  of  the  Tribune 
Company,  but  in  which  shall  be  at  our  election,  and  also  in  full  compensa¬ 
tion  for  the  time  already  spent  by  you  in  assisting  us  in  obtaining  corrob¬ 
orative  evidence  of  the  facts  contained  in  this  story,  and  in  full  payment  for  all 
your  time,  which  shall  be  devoted  by  you  to  further  substantiate  this  story 
at  any  time,  which  time  you  hereby  agree  to  devote  to  that  purpose  as  and  when 
called  upon  so  to  do,  the  Tribune  Company  hereby  agrees  to  pay  you  $3,250,  of 
which  said  sum  $1,250  shall  be  paid  upon  the  printing  of  the  said  story  or  the 
first  installment  thereof,  $1,000  thirty  days  after  said  first  payment,  and  $1,000 
sixty  days  thereafter. 

You  reserve  to  yourself  all  book  or  other  rights  to  the  story  other  than  the 
exclusive  newspaper  rights  hereinbefore  referred  to,  which  belong  under  the 
terms  hereof  to  the  Tribune  Company. 

J.  Keeley, 

Vice-President  Tribune  Company. 

Chicago,  III.,  April  — ,  1910. 

To  The  Chicago  Tribune,  and  The  Tribune  Company. 

Gentlemen  :  I  have  read  the  above  and  foregoing  and  agree  to  the  terms 
thereof,  and  to  accept  the  sums  of  money  as  therein  set  forth,  and  I  further 
agree  to  devote  my  time  and  services  to  substantiate  the  story  referred  to  as 
and  when  requested  by  you  so  to  do  and  in  such  manner  as  you  may  direct. 

Chas.  A.  White. 

(Record,  p.  104.) 

White’s  account  of  the  alleged  bribery  of  himself  is  given  circum¬ 
stantially  and  in  detail,  but  in  this  he  has  been  shown  to  have  falsified 
in  several  important  particulars  concerning  which  he  could  not  have 
been  mistaken  had  his  narrative  been  true.  Among  other  things  he 
stated  that  Browne  came  to  his  room  shortly  before  the  election  of 
Senator  Lorimer  and  that  two  men  named  Yarborough  were  then 
in  the  room.  But  it  was  proved  by  two  reputable  and  credible  wit¬ 
nesses  that  on  the  evening  in  question  one  of  these  men  was  in 
Chicago. 

Without  further  reference  to  the  details  of  White’s  testimony,  it 
may  be  said  that  after  seeing,  observing,  and  hearing  this  witness  it 
was  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of  the  subcommittee  that  no  credence 
ought  to  be  given  to  any  part  of  his  testimony  tending  to  establish  the 
fact  of  bribery.  And  after  carefully  reading  the  testimony  given  by 
White  in  the  investigation,  a  majority  of  the  committee  concur  in  the 
opinion  of  the  subcommittee  in  that  regard. 


6 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


MICHAEL  LINK. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  this  witness,  he  was  paid  the  sum  of 
$1,000  by  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  some  time  after  Mr.  Lorimer  had  been 
elected  to  the  Senate.  He  further  testified  that  no  money  was  paid  or 
promised  him  before  he  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer ;  that  he  made  up  his 
mind  as  early  as  in  the  month  of  March,  1909,  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
if  an  opportunity  for  so  doing  should  occur,  and  promised  Mr.  Lori¬ 
mer  his  vote  some  time  in  advance  of  the  election  of  a  Senator.  When 
accused  of  having  received  money  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  he 
denied  it.  When  summoned  before  a  grand  jury  he  stated  under  oath 
that  he  had  not  received  any  money  as  a  consideration  for  his  vote  for 
Senator.  Following  this  statement  he  was  compelled,  by  means  fully 
set  forth  in  his  testimony,  to  retract  his  former  statement  and  testify 
to  having  received  money  for  his  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  as  shown  by 
the  following: 

Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  You  are  a  farmer,  I  believe,  are  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  have  been  all  your  manhood  life? — A.  All  my  life;  born  on  a  farm. 

Q.  You  have  lived  in  Madison  County  for  how  long? — A.  TwentjT-three  years. 

Q.  You  live  out  some  distance  from - A.  (Interrupting.)  A  mile  from 

Mitchell,  a  little  station. 

Q.  When  were  you  first  elected  to  the  legislature? — A.  In  November,  1906. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  everybody  from  the  southern  part  of  Illinois,  Repub¬ 
licans  and  Democrats,  who  desire  to  meet  each  other  at  any  place  generally 
go  to  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes,  sir;  from  time  to  time  men  for  years  have  met  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  legislature  there. 

Q.  Was  it  very  much  easier  to  go  to  St.  Louis  than  to  any  other  town  that 
has  any  hotel  accommodations  south  of  the  central  part  of  Illinois? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  It  is  very  much  easier  to  go  there  than  from  any  other  part  of  southern 
or  central  Illinois  than  it  is  to  go  to  Chicago,  isn’t  it — very  much  easier  to  go 
to  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  practically  a  uniform  practice,  is  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  anybody,  for  political  or  other  reasons,  want  two  or  three  to  get 
together  for  any  purpose,  they  meet  at  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  has  been  the  case  for  a  great  many  years? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Tierney  and  White  talk  with  you  or  come  down  there  more  than 
once? — A.  Not  White;  Tierney  was  there  the  second  time,  and  I  pretty  nearly 
forgot  the  incident,  when  I  met  him  somewhere  about  Mitchell,  about  the  sta¬ 
tion.  I  went  in  for  my  mail,  or,  perhaps,  to  buy  something. 

Q.  Did  he  try  to  get  some  information  from  you  or  try  to  get  some  admissions 
from  you? — A.  He  certainly  did. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  was  a  detective  connected  with  the  Maguire  and 
White  Detective  Agency,  detectives  for  the  Chicago  Tribune? — A.  No;  he  said 
he  represented  Gov.  Deneen. 

Q.  You  were  then  summoned  or  told  to  come  up  here? — A.  Yes,  sir;  by  sub¬ 
poena. 

Q.  And  you  did  come  up? — A.  I  certainly  came  up. 

Q.  When  you  came  up  where  did  you  go? — A.  I  went  to  the  Morrison  Hotel. 

Q.  Then  did  you  go  to  the  state’s  attorney’s  office? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  went  to  the  state’s  attorney’s  office  did  you  see  Mr.  Wayman. 
the  state’s  attorney,  or  Mr.  Arnold,  or  Mr.  Marshall? — A.  Mr.  Arnold  and  Mr. 
Marshall,  I  think;  I  did  not  see  Mr.  Wayman. 

Q.  Which  one  did  you  see? — A.  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Marshall,  I  am  not  posi¬ 
tive;  I  rather  think  it  was. 

Q.  It  was  one  of  the  assistant  state’s  attorneys? — A.  Yes,  sir;  one  of  the 
assistant  state’s  attorneys. 

Q.  Tell  the  conversation,  the  language  used  by  each  as  nearly  as  possible, 
and  if  you  can  not  do  that,  give  the  substance  as  nearly  as  you  can. — A.  Well, 
I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Marshall  something  like  this:  He  says  to  me, 
“If  I  were  you  I  would  not  be  here  telling  damned  lies  before  this  grand  jury; 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


7 


I  would  tell  the  truth.’  Then  I  told  him  he  would  uot  tell  me  that  outside 
very  well  or  we  might  mix. 

Q.  Had  you  been  before  the  grand  jury  then? — A.  I  think  I  had;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  do  is  to  commence  before — just  before  you  were  taken  to 

the  grand-jury  room,  and  I  would  like  to  have  you - A.  (Interrupting.)  I 

didn’t  have  any  particular  conversation  to  my  recollection  with  any  one  of  the 
asistant  State’s  attorneys. 

Q.  You  went  there,  you  don’t  remember  how,  and  was  taken  before  the  grand 
jury? — A.  Yes,  sir;  when  my  turn  came. 

Q.  They  asked  you  there  in  relation  to  your  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator? — A.  I  was  in  the  grand-jury  room;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  know. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  examined  by  whom? — A.  By  Mr.  Wayman. 

Q.  By  Mr.  Wayman  himself? — A.  By  Mr.  Wayman  himself;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  ask  in  relation  to  that  subject?  I  don’t  care  about  anything 
else. — A.  He  asked  me  if  I  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer,  and  I  told  him  yes. 
According  to  my  recollection  I  told  him,  “  Certainly,  I  voted  for  Senator  Lori¬ 
mer  and  was  proud  of  it ;  no  excuses  to  make.” 

Q.  What  took  place  then?  Did  he  ask  you  if  you  had  been  paid  anything  for 
voting  for  Senator  Lorimer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  him? — A.  I  absolutely  denied  it. 

Q.  You  didn’t  tell  this  to  Mr.  Wayman  individually,  but  in  answering  his 
question  to  the  whole  grand  jury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  All  the  conversation  you  had  with  Mr.  Wayman  in  the  grand  jury  room 
was  public  conversation  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  That  is  all  at  that  time. 
I  had  some  conversation — at  that  time — yes,  sir — at  that  time. 

Senator  Bubrows.  State  what  you  said  before  the  grand  jury. — A.  Well,  I 
answered  questions,  but  I  disremember  what  all  the  questions  he  asked  me  were. 

Senator  Burrows.  State  those  you  can  remember  and  your  replies. — A.  I 
denied  receiving  any  money  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer. 

By  Judge  Hanecy  : 

Q.  Then  did  you  leave  the  grand  jury  room? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  those  different  questions  were  asked  you? — A.  Yes,  sir;  at  that 
time  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  day  of  the  week  or  day  of  the  month  that  was 
you  first  went  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  That  was  the  5th  or  7th  of  May;  it 
was  right  along  there,  the  early  days  of  May. 

Q.  May  of  this  year? — A.  Yes,  sir;  May  of  this  year. 

Q.  When  you  left  the  grand  jury  room  were  you  put  in  the  custody  of  an 
officer? — A.  I  certainly  was. 

Q.  Were  you  indicted  at  that  time  or  was  there  any  complaint  or  charge 
made  against  you  at  any  place? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  put  you  in  charge  of  an  officer? — A.  Well,  I  presume  Mr.  Wayman 
did.  To  my  knowledge  I  was  in  charge  directly  of  an  officer. 

Q.  Who  was  the  officer? — A.  Well,  there  were  two  or  three  different  officers. 

Q.  The  first  one? — A.  I  disremember  his  name.  Mr.  O’Keefe  was  with  me 
most  of  the  time. 

Q.  Was  it  Oake? — A.  I  think  that  is  his  name. 

Q.  He  was  the  first  officer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  a  police  officer,  a  detective  appointed  to  the  State’s  attorney’s 
office  at  that  time? — A.  Yes;  I  understood  so. 

Q.  Did  he  take  charge  of  you  at  that  time? — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  in  his  custody? — A.  I  disremember. 

Q.  About? — A.  The  first  night  I  think  I  went  to  dinner  with  him — the  first 
night,  I  believe;  that  would  be  on  Wednesday  night  of  the  week;  and  I 
remained  in  his  custody  and  he  kept  his  eye  on  me  like  I  was  a  criminal. 
Oake  would  not  allow  me  to  telephone  to  friends,  and  was  keeping  his  eye  on 
me,  and  I  was  not  allowed  to  discuss  any  matters  at  all. 

Q.  Was  he  armed  at  the  time,  and  did  he  take  out  his  revolver  and  his  billie 
and  put  them  on  the  table  in  the  hotel,  so  you  could  see  them? — A.  He  did  not, 
b«/t  other  detectives  did;  I  suppose  he  was  armed,  but  I  don’t  know  to  my 
knowledge. 

Q.  Other  officers  did? — A.  Other  officers  did. 

Q.  Were  you  continuously  in  the  charge  of  some  officer  of  the  State’s  attor¬ 
ney’s  office,  after  that  time? — A.  I  certainly  was. 

Q.  Up  to  what  time? — A.  Until  I  was  permitted  to  go  home  on  Saturday 

morning. 


8 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER, 


Q.  What  day? — A.  It  was  the  week  I  was  here;  I  disremember — it  was  from 
the  5th,  6th,  7th,  8th,  or  9th,  or  something  of  that  kind,  of  May. 

Senator  Bubbows.  It  was  Saturday  morning  of  that  week? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  came  up  here  what  day  of  the  week? — A.  I  came  here  Tuesday 
evening. 

By  Judge  Hanecy  : 

Q.  You  went  before  the  State’s  attorney — went  before  the  grand  jury  Wed¬ 
nesday  morning,  did  you? — A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  When  you  went  back  home  again,  did  an  officer  go  with  you? — A.  Not  at 
that  time. 

Q.  Did  an  officer  from  the  State’s  attorney’s  office  come  down  and  get  you 
afterwards? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When,  after  that  Saturday  morning  that  you  went  home? — A.  That  was 
the — well — I  wish  to  correct  that.  I  got  a  subpoena  served  to  me  to  go  to 
Springfield  on  my  return  home  Saturday  evening  of  this  week.  I  went  to 
Springfield  from  this  subpoena  and  acknowledged  it,  and  a  detective  went  home 
with  me  from  Springfield  and  stayed  with  me. 

Q.  That  was  a  subpoena  to  appear  before  the  grand  jury  at  Springfield? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  that? — A.  That  was  the  week  following  I  was  here. 

Q.  Was  it  the  first  of  the  week  or  the  middle  of  the  week  or  the  last? — A. 
Well,  I  think  it  was  on  Monday  following  the  Saturday  I  left  Chicago. 

Q.  When  did  you  leave  Springfield  to  go  home?  You  got  there  Monday? — 
A.  That  evening. 

Q.  Monday  evening? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  an  officer  from  the  State’s  attorney’s  office  of  Cook  County  go  with 
you  back  home  from  Springfield  on  Monday  evening? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  take  you  into  custody? — A.  Well,  I  was  not  arrested. 

Q.  Did  he  stay  with  you  there  all  the  time? — A.  He  went  to  my  house,  but 
went  to  St.  Louis,  I  believe,  one  day  while  at  my  house  in  the  country ;  but  he 
went  home  with  me  and  stayed  with  me,  but,  of  course,  he  went  to  St.  Louis 
during  one  day. 

Q.  He  was  with  you  wherever  you  went? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Paynteb.  Was  that  officer  from  Chicago  or  Springfield? — A.  Chicago. 

Senator  Gamble.  How  long  was  he  with  you? — A.  Four  days. 

Q.  At  your  home? — A.  Until  I  insisted  upon  having  him  called  off. 

Q.  Did  he  stay  at  your  home? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  All  the  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Except  when  you  went  out,  and  then  he  went  with  you? — A.  He  went  to 
St.  Louis  during  that  time  by  himself. 

Q.  How  far  are  you  from  St.  Louis,  about? — A.  About  15  miles. 

Q.  You  can  go  there  by  electric  line? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  get  back  in  two  or 
three  hours,  at  any  time. 

Q.  Then  did  another  officer — I  will  withdraw  that — did  the  State’s  attorney 
of  Sangamon  County,  Springfield,  send  any  officer  with  you  after  you  had  been 
examined  there  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  never  had  you  in  custody? — A.  No,  sir;  they  don’t  use  those  methods. 

Q.  When  the  officer  left  Springfield — the  officer  from  the  State’s  attorney’s 
office  in  Cook  County  left  with  you  to  go  to  your  home  from  Springfield — did 
he  have  any  warrant  against  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  Was  there  any  warrant  for  your  arrest? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  Or  a  subpoena  served  on  you? — A.  A  subpoena  to  appear  at 
Springfield. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  After  you  left  Springfield  and  went  back  home  was  there  any  subpoena  or 
warrant  against  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  that  officer’s  name? — A.  That  was  O’Keefe  that  called  for  me. 

Senator  Johnston.  What  did  the  officer  say  he  accompanied  you  from  Spring- 
field  for? — A.  He  claimed  it  was  for  my  own  protection.  I  told  him  positively 
that  I  needed  no  protection ;  that  I  could  protect  myself. 

Q.  Did  he  insist  upon  staying  at  your  house? — A.  He  was  under  orders  from 
a  gentleman  in  Chicago. 

Q.  Who  was  the  next  officer  who  had  charge  of  you? — A.  Well,  I  think  after 
that  time  I  was  under  the  direction  of  O’Keefe  until  I  read  what  is  called  the 
“  riot  act  ”  to  Wayman. 


ELECTION  OP  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


9 


Q.  When  was  that?— A.  That  was  about  a  week  before  the  first  Browne  trial 
when  I  told  Wayman  no  more  detectives  for  me.  “  If  you  have  got  a  warrant’ 
arrest  me;  if  I  am  guilty  of  anything,  arrest  me;  but  no  more  detectives-  I 
shall  not  submit  to  detectives  any  longer.”  That  was  my  conversation. 

Q.  Did  O’Keefe  then  go  to  Chicago  with  you  and  stay  with  you  at  the  differ¬ 
ent  hotels  or  wherever  you  were  kept?— A.  He  did  until  a  week  before  the 
Browne  trial ;  then  no  more  detectives  after  that  for  me. 

Q.  He  did  stay  here  until  that  time?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  first  trial  of  Browne  commenced  about  the  7th  to  the  10th  of  June- 
that  is  right,  isn’t  it?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  so. 

Q.  Now,  after  you  were  before  this  grand  jury,  the  first  grand  jury,  and  told 
Mr.  Wayman,  the  State’s  attorney,  and  the  grand  jury  that  you  never  got  any 
money  from  anybody,  Browne  or  anybody  else,  for  voting  for  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator,  were  you  indicted? — A.  I  was  indicted  for  perjury  either 
the  second  or  third  day  I  was  here — I  am  not  positive  which— after  my  denial. 

Q.  Was  it  the  second  or  third  day  after  you  first  went  before  the  grand 
jury  ?  A.  It  was  either  the  second  or  third  day,  I  guess  the  second  I  am 
not  positive  whether  the  second  or  third  day. 

Q.  You  were  indicted  for  perjury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  By  the  same  grand  jury  you  had  been  before?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  were  indicted  for  perjury  were  you  taken  by  the  State’s  attor¬ 
ney  or  any  of  his  assistants  and  talked  with  about  your  testimony  and  about 
your  indictment? — A.  I  guess  I  was. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  the  first  thing  that  was  done  after  you  were  indicted  for 
peijuiy  by  him?— A.  They  kept  flaunting  the  indictment  for  perjury  against  me. 

Q.  Doing  what .  A.  Putting  it  in  front  of  my  face,  showing  it  to  me  and 
speaking  to  me. 

Senator  Gamble.  Who  did  that?— A.  The  assistant  State’s  attorney  and  the 
State’s  attorney  himself. 

Q.  Tell  the  names  of  the  assistant  State’s  attorneys. — A.  Mr.  Marshall 

Q.  Did  State’s  Attorney  Wayman  do  that,  too?— A.  He  didn’t  throw  it  in  my 
face ;  he  would  show  it  to  me  and  talk  to  me  about  losing  my  home  putting  my 
home  on  one  side  and  the  penitentiary  on  the  other.  ’ 

Q.  State  to  this  honorable  committee  what  State’s  Attorney  Wayman  told 
you  about  the  indictment  for  perjury.— A.  He  told  me  if  I  would  go  before  the 
grand  jury  and  state  that  I  had  received  some  money  from  Browne  and  Robert 
E.  Wilson  that  I  would  be  cleared  and  go  home  a  free  man.  That  is  what  he 
told  me. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anything  else  said?— A.  Well,  I  told  him  that  I  had  told 
him  all  I  knew,  and  he  denied  that  I  had.  We  kept  up  the  conversation  and 
he  said  he  was  a  farmer  himself  in  his  early  days  South.  I  told  him  I  was  a 
farmer,  and  he  told  me,  he  says :  “  You  come  up  here  ’’—the  conversation  drifted 
along  this  line — “  and  let  these  Chicago  lawyers  get  a  hold  of  you  and  they  will 
take  your  farm  away  from  you.”  That  was  the  line  of  talk ;  and  he  told  me 
to  rest  over  that  night — that  was  Friday  evening — and  to  come  in  by  10  o’clock 
on  Saturday  morning  and  make  a  confession,  and  he  would  have  the  perjury 
charge  expunged  from  the  record,  and  I  would  go  home  a  free  man.  That  was 
the  sum  and  substance  of  the  conversation. 

Q.  They  had  more  than  an  hour  to  talk  to  you  about  that? — A.  Yes  sir- 
something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  that  conversation;  what  time  did  it  end? — A.  It 
was  somewhere  between  5.20  and  6.30;  it  was  6.30  when  I  left  the  Criminal 
Court  Building  that  evening. 

Q.  Then  were  you  put  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  when  you  left  the  State’s 
attorney?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  that  officer?— A.  That  was  Mr.  O’Keefe. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  with  you? — A.  He  took  me  back  to  the  Morrison  Hotel. 

Q.  Did  he  stay  there  with  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  All  the  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  he  that  took  his  revolver  billie  out  and  put  it  on  the  table  in  your 
presence? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  talk  with  you  about  what  the  State’s  attorney  talked  to  you  about— 
about  your  going  back  and  telling  what  the  State’s  attorney  wanted  you  to 
tell? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  Detective  O’Keefe  from  the  State’s  attorney’s  office  say  to  you 
in  that  respect? — A.  He  said:  “Link,  I  would  not  stand  by  the  other  fellows 
I  would  stand  by  Wayman,  he  is  the  man  to  stand  by  in  this  matter;  make  a 


10 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


confession.  I  don’t  like  to  see  you  get  into  trouble  and  you  are  going  to  get 
into  trouble.” 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  how  long  during  this  conversation  between  you  and  O’Keefe, 
how  long  did  O’Keefe  talk  to  you  ? — A.  Off  and  on,  but  I  disremember  the  number 
of  times;  it  was  not  continuous,  of  course,  but  off  and  on  during  the  time  he 
was  with  me. 

Q.  Off  and  on  between  the  times  you  and  the  State’s  attorney  had  the  talk 
and  he  took  you  back  there? — A.  Prior  to  that  night,  too. 

Q.  All  the  time  you  were  in  his  custody? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  Officer  O’Keefe  take  you  back  to  the  State’s  attorney’s  office  the 
next  morning? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  would  be  Saturday  morning? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with,  or  did  Thomas  Maguire,  of  the  Maguire  &  White  Detec¬ 
tive  Agency,  talk  with  you? — A.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  present  nearly  every  time  I 
met  Wayman,  and  Wayman  and  myself  were  in  Wayman’s  room. 

Q.  What  did  Maguire  say  to  you? — A.  He  tried  to  put  words  in  my  mouth 
several  times. 

Q.  Words  about  what? — A.  He  said  I  should  not  be  friendly  to  the  Browne 
side,  and  the  Lorimer  side,  and  so  forth ;  “  It  doesn’t  look  well,  Link ;  that 
don’t  look  well.”  I  told  him  it  was  none  of  his  business;  I  would  take  up  for 
my  friends  wherever  I  saw  fit  to  take  them. 

Q.  Did  Thomas  Maguire,  the  detective,  say  this  to  you — that  you  had  better 
tell  what  you  knew  or  you  would  go  to  the  penitentiary;  did  Maguire  say  that 
to  you? — A.  I  rather  think  one  of  the  assistant  State’s  attorneys  told  me  that; 
I  don’t  know  whether  Maguire  said  that  to  me  or  not,  but  his  conversation  ran 
on  that  line.  I  think  that  was  Arnold ;  20  minutes  before  5  o’clock  that  evening 
of  that  week. 

Q.  What  was  that  conversation  you  had  with  Assistant  State’s  Attorney  Ar¬ 
nold  in  which  he  said  that  to  you? — A.  Mr.  Arnold  came  to  me  and  says, 
“  Link,  you  have  got  just  20  minutes  to  save  your  life.”  I  says,  “What 
do  you  mean?”  He  says,  “You  have  got  just  20  minutes  to  go  in  and  tell 
all  you  know  to  save  your  life.”  I  says,  “  I  have  told  all  I  know.”  He  says, 
“  All  right,  Link,  it  is  your  funeral ;  it  is  not  mine.”  He  goes  into  the  grand 
jury  room  and  an  indictment  was  returned  that  evening.  I  told  him  I  had  told 
all  I  knew. 

Senator  Paynter.  An  indictment  against  you? — A.  Yes,  sir;  for  perjury. 

Q.  Arnold  said  that  you - A.  He  said  I  had  20  minutes  to  save  my  life. 

Q.  That  was  just  before - A.  (Interrupting.)  Twenty  minutes  before  the 

grand  jury  adjourned  at  5  o’clock,  Friday  afternoon  or  evening. 

Q.  Were  you  told  that  night  that  you  were  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  of  the 
State’s  attorney  and  that  you  had  been  indicted  for  perjury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  told  you  that?  Was  it  a  detective  or  one  of  the  assistant  State’s 
attorneys? — A.  It  was,  I  think,  Mr.  Wayman  himself  that  told  me  that. 

Q.  Mr.  Wayman  himself  told  you  that? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Arnold  say  to  you  in  that  conversation  that  you  have  been  refer¬ 
ring  to,  just  before  you  were  indicted  for  perjury,  that  if  you  didn’t  tell  what 
they  wanted  you  to  that  they  would  send  you  to  the  penitentiary? — A.  That  it 
was  my  funeral ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  use  the  word  “  penitentiary  ” — that  he  would  send  you  to  the  peni¬ 
tentiary? — A.  I  am  not  quite  certain;  I  am  not  positive;  but  he  used  that  kind 
of  terms  to  me. 

Q.  Did  he  lay  special  stress  upon  the  word  “  penitentiary  ”  in  talking  to 
you? — a.  Mr.  Wayman  laid  more  stress  on  that  than  any  of  his  assistants. 

Q.  That  is,  that  he  would  send  you  to  the  penitentiary? — A.  He  pictured  it 
very,  very  strenuously  between  the  penitentiary  and  my  home. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  state  what  he  said? — A.  He  said,  “It  will  be 
much  better  for  you  to  be  here  with  your  family  than  to  go  to  the  penitentiary 
and  lose  your  home.”  He  pictured  what  the  penitentiary  was,  and  so  forth. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  did  he  say? — A.  That  I  might  lose  my  home,  and  he 
put  a  great  deal  of  stress  on  the  penitentiary  and  my  home — I  being  a  farmer 
away  from  my  home  and  my  family. 

Q/  Did  Mr.  Wayman  say  anything  in  picturing  the  penitentiary  on  one  side 
and  your  home  on  the  other  about  your  wife? — A.  Why,  certainly. 

Q.  Tell  the  committee  what  he  said. — A.  Well,  that  I  would  lose  my  home, 
and  that  meant  I  would  lose  my  wife,  too. 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


11 


Q.  Did  he  say  what  would  be  done  if  you  would  go  before  the  grand  jury 
and  tell  what  he  wanted  you  to? — A.  That  I  could  go  home  a  free  man  and  not 
a  perjurer  in  any  manner,  shape,  or  form. 

Senator  Burbows.  If  what? — A.  If  I  went  before  the  grand  jury  and  made 
an  acknowledgment. 

Senator  Burrows.  An  acknowledgment  of  what? — A.  If  I  had  received  $1,000 
from  Browne. 

Senator  Frazier.  Was  that  true  that  you  had  received  $1,000? — A.  I  shall 
not  deny  it;  it  is  true. 

Q.  Did  not  the  State’s  attorney  say  to  you  that  if  you  would  go  on  and  say 
that  you  had  received  $1,000  from  Browne  for  voting  for  W'illiam  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator  that  you  could  go  home? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  not  true? — A.  That  was  not  true;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  tell  you  that  you  had  been  indicted  and  that  he  would 
take  you  before  the  criminal  court  for  trial  on  that  indictment  if  you  didn’t 
go  before  the  grand  jury  and  tell  that  body  what  Mr.  Wayman  wanted  you  to 
tell? — A.  Why,  certainly;  he  said  I  would  have  to  give  a  bond,  and  it  was  a 
$15,000  bond,  and  they  made  it  $5,000,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  tell  you  what  he  would  do  if  you  would  go  before  the 
grand  jury  and  tell  them  what  he  wanted  you  to  tell  them?  Did  he  tell  you 
what  he  would  do  with  the  indictment? — A.  Nolle  pros  it  and  have  it  expunged 
from  the  record,  so  in  future  years  it  would  not  be  on  the  record. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Mr.  Wayman,  “  W'ell,  I  will  go  before  the  grand  jury  and 
lie  if  I  have  to;  but  I  don’t  want  to;  ”  did  you  say  that  or  that  in  substance? — 
A.  That  in  substance. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  the  grand  jury,  then? — A.  I  told  the  grand  jury  that  I 
had  received  $1,000  from  Browne  and  that  I  had  received  $900  through  Robert 
Wilson ;  that  is  what  I  told  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  the  grand  jury  that  you  had  received  that  money  or  any  part 
of  it  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator?— A.  Posi¬ 
tively  no. 

Q.  Just  before  you  went  before  the  grand  jury  that  last  time  did  Mr.  Wayman 
tell  you  that  if  you  would  go  and  tell  the  grand  jury  what  he  wanted  you  to 
you  would  keep  out  of  trouble  and  keep  from  disgracing  your  family? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  went  before  the  grand  jury  with  Mr.  Wayman  the  last  time 
and  told  the  grand  jury  what  Mr.  Wayman  asked  you  to,  what,  if  anything, 
did  Mr.  Wayman  or  his  office  do  in  relation  to  the  indictment  against  you 
for  perjury? — A.  Well,  he  took  me  before  Judge  McSurely,  I  think  it  was,  and 
said:  “Mr.  Link  has  made  a  clean  breast  of  the  whole  affair.”  I  didn’t  know 
what  he  called  a  “  clean  breast,”  but  those  were  his  words.  I  denied  making 
a  clean  breast  of  anything  except  the  truth. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  have  the  indictment  against  you  quashed? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  took  you  before  Judge  McSurely  and  asked  to  have  it  done,  and  Judge 
McSurely  did  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  still  continue  in  the  custody  of  the  officer? — A.  No,  sir;  he 
allowed  me  to  go  home. 

Q.  Did  he  put  you  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  after  that  time? — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  When? — A.  The  following  week. 

Q.  That  was  Saturday  that  he  dismissed  the  indictment  against  you? — 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When,  the  next  week,  were  you  put  in  the  custody  of  another  officer? — A. 
Monday  night  or  Tuesday  night — I  think  it  was  Monday  night  of  the  following 
week.  A  subpoena  was  served  on  me  to  go  to  Springfield,  and  immediately  on 
my  return  home  on  that  Saturday  evening — I  returned  home  about  6.30;  that 
is  my  home  town ;  I  didn’t  get  home  quite  that  early. 

Q.  Did  that  officer  or  some  other  officer  from  the  state’s  attorney’s  office  keep 
you  in  custody  all  the  time — until  about  the  time  of  the  first  Browne  trial? — 
A.  I  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wayman  that  I  would  not  submit  to  it  and  told  him 
personally  when  I  came  to  Chicago  no  more  detectives  for  me;  that  I  would 
not  play  hide  and  go  seek  any  longer;  that  I  was  not  a  criminal,  and  that  I 
would  not  stand  for  it.  I  wrote  him  such  a  letter  from  my  home,  and  told 
him  to  recall  Mr.  O’Keefe,  which  he  did. 

Q.  When  was  that? — A.  After  he  was  with  me;  I  think  about  four  days  there. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  day  of  the  month  that  was,  or  what  month? — 
A.  No,  sir;  it  was  during  the  month  of  May. 


12 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LO RIMER. 


Q.  When  was  it  with  respect  to  the  commencement  of  the  first  Browne  trial? — 
A.  It  was  some  little  time  before  the  commencement  of  the  trial. 

Q.  About  how  long? — A.  About  three  or  four  weeks;  perhaps  three  weeks  or 
something ;  I  don’t  know.  I  told  him  positively  that  I  would  not  submit  to  it, 
and  when  I  saw  Mr.  Wayman,  a  week  before  the  first  Browne  trial,  I  told  him 
that  personally. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  know  is,  if  you  were  put  into  the  custody  of  an  officer  from 
the  State’s  attorney’s  office  after  you  were  indicted  for  perjury  and  that  indict¬ 
ment  for  perjury  had  been  dismissed? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  still  kept  in  the  custody  of  an  officer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  charge  against  you  of  any  kind  that  you  know  of? — A.  None 
whatever. 

Q.  After  that  indictment  for  perjury  had  been  dismissed? — A.  Well,  by  Mr. 
Wayman’s  advice  I  refused  to  answer  questions  at  Springfield.  I  had  to  go 
to  Springfield  two  or  three  times,  and  at  his  advice  refused  to  answer  the 
questions. 

Q.  Were  you  summoned  before  the  grand  jury  in  Springfield  as  a  witness? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  know  that  you  had  been  summoned  as  a  witness  there? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  talk  with  you  about  whether  you  should  go  before  the  grand  jury 
in  response  to  the  subpoena  of  the  court? — A.  Not  as  to  whether  I  should  go, 
but  as  to  whether  I  should  answer  certain  questions  or  not. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  whether  or  not  you  should  answer  questions  that  might  be 
asked  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  By  the  grand  jury  or  the  State’s  attorney  of  Sangamon  County? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you? — A.  He  told  me  not  to  answer,  but  to  stand  on  the 
ground  that  I  might  incriminate  myself  by  answering  any  questions  before  the 
grand  jury. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Wayman  that  you  were  not  afraid  of  incriminating  your¬ 
self? — A.  Certainly;  I  told  him  I  wanted  to  answer  the  questions  my  way  that 
were  put  to  me  there. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  to  you? — A.  “Don’t  do  it,  Link;  don’t  do  it.” 

Q.  Did  he  know  that  the  State’s  attorney  and  the  grand  jury  of  Sangamon 
County  had  summoned  you  before  the  grand  jury  to  testify  in  relation  to  these 
matters? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you  as  to  the  subject-matter?  Did  he  tell  you  not  to  answer 
the  questions  of  the  State’s  attorney  or  the  grand  jury  of  Sangamon  County  ? — 
A.  If  the  senatorial  committee  please,  the  question  all  hinged  upon  one  answer, 
“  No  ”  or  “  Yes,”  to  one  certain  question,  and  that  question  was,  “  Did  you 
receive  or  were  you  offered  or  do  you  know  of  anybody  being  offered  any  money 
in  Springfield  for  voting  on  any  question?”  That  was  the  question,  and  when 
I  finally  got  permission  from  Mr.  Wayman,  which  I  answered  positively,  right 
straight  out,  “  No.”  I  answered,  “  No.”  That  is  all  there  was  about  that.  He 
wouldn’t  let  me  answer  the  question  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  in  the  criminal  court  building  about  a  week 
prior  to  the  trial  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  with  H.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer,  in  the 
criminal  court  building  about  a  week  before  the  first  Browne  trial  began? — 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  was  just  about  a  week  before — a  week  prior. 

Q.  Did  Beckemeyer  say  to  you,  “  Our  testimony  will  be  alike,  word  for 
word?  ”  And  did  you  say,  “  No,  Beck,  I  have  got  the  best  of  you ;  I  promised 
to  vote  for  Lorimer  eight  or  ten  days  before  Browne  spoke  to  me  about  it  ”  ? — 
A.  That  conversation  took  place. 

Q.  As  I  read  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Beckemeyer  say  to  you,  “  Yes ;  you  have  the  best  of  me  in  that  ”  ? 
Then  did  you  say  to  Beckemeyer :  “  Beck,  I  don’t  believe  that  Lorimer  ever  put 
up  a  dollar  for  his  election,  or  that  anybody  else  ever  put  up  a  dollar  for  him  ”  ? 
And  did  Beckemeyer  say,  “  I  don’t  believe  he  did,  either  ”  ? — A.  That  was  the 
conversation,  word  for  word,  as  near  as  I  can  remember  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  money  or  any  other  thing  of  value  from  any¬ 
body — Browne,  Wilson,  or  anybody  else — on  condition,  or  on  the  promise  or 
agreement  or  understanding,  directly  or  indirectly,  that  you  were  to  vote  for 
William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  certainly  did  not. 

Senator  Gamble.  Or  after  he  had  voted  for  Lorimer. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  money  from  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  Bob  Wilson,  or 
R.  E.  Wilson,  whatever  his  name  is,  or  anybody  else,  or  from  any  source  what- 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


13 


ever,  or  did  you  receive  any  other  thing  of  value  at  any  time  from  anybody  be¬ 
cause  you  had  voted  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  any  consideration  moving  to  you,  or  to  anybody  for  you, 
or  for  your  benefit,  in  any  place,  from  any  source  whatever,  with  the  understand¬ 
ing  that  you  were  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator,  or  if 
you  had  voted  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator,  any  considera¬ 
tion  of  any  kind? — A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  for  any  other 
reason  than  that  you  liked  him,  and  that  you  favored  and  that  your  people 
favored  the  things  he  favored  in  relation  to  the  deep  waterway  from  the  Lakes 
to  the  Gulf? — A.  That  is  why  I  voted  for  him. 

H.  J.  BECKEMEYER. 

This  witness  also  testified  before  the  subcommittee  that  he  had 

received  money  from  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  as  a  reward  for  his  vote  for 
«/ 

Senator  Lorimer,  but  he  also  testifies  that  no  money  or  other  com¬ 
pensation  was  promised  him  before  he  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  His 
experience  before  the  grand  jury  was  similar  to  that  of  the  witness 
Michael  Link,  and  as  against  his  declaration  last  made  before  the 
grand  jury  and  repeated  to  the  subcommittee  we  have  his  statement 
to  Michael  Link  denying  the  use  of  money  in  the  senatorial  election, 
and  also  to  Robert  E.  Wilson  that  he  did  not  get  any  money  for 
voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  and  if  anyone  said  so  he  was  a  liar. 

D.  W.  HOLSTLAW. 

This  witness  testified  that  in  a  conversation  with  Senator  Broder¬ 
ick  he  told  Broderick  that  he  intended  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for 
Senator,  to  which  Broderick  replied,  “  Well,  there  is  $2,500  for  you,” 
and  that  sometime  afterwards  Broderick  paid  him  $2,500.  This  wit¬ 
ness  was  also  driven  to  making  this  statement  by  certain  proceedings 
taken  before  a  grand  jury  of  Sangamon  County,  Ill.,  and  in  many 
respects  the  story  told  by  this  witness  seemed  to  the  subcommittee  to 
be  a  highly  improbable  one. 

The  circumstances  before  referred  to  and  many  others  which 
might  be  instanced,  tended  to  render  the  testimony  of  each  and  all 
the  witnesses  who  have  been  named,  of  doubtful  value.  And  in  each 
case  in  which  it  was  claimed  that  some  member  of  the  Illinois  Gen¬ 
eral  Assembly  had  been  bribed  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  the  accusa¬ 
tion  was  positively  denied  by  the  person  accused  of  committing  the 
alleged  act  of  bribery.  And  after  a  careful  examination  and  con¬ 
sideration  of  all  the  evidence  submitted,  the  committee  are  of  the 
opinion  that  even  if  it  should  be  conceded  that  the  four  members 
of  the  Illinois  General  Assembly  before  referred  to  received  money 
in  consideration  for  their  votes  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  there  are  no  facts 
or  circumstances  from  which  it  could  be  found  or  legally  inferred  that 
any  other  member  or  members  of  the  said  general  assembly  were 
bribed  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer. 

The  majority  for  Senator  Lorimer  in  the  joint  assembly  of  the 
two  houses  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Illinois  was  14. 
Unless,  therefore,  a  sufficient  number  of  these  votes  were  obtained 
by  corrupt  means  to  deprive  him  of  this  majority,  Mr.  Lorimer  has 
a  good  title  to  the  seat  he  occupies  in  the  Senate.  If  it  were  admitted 


14 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


that  four  of  the  members  of  the  general  assembly  who  voted  for  Mr. 
Lorimer  were  bribed  to  do  so,  he  still  had  a  majority  of  the  votes 
cast  in  the  general  assembly,  and  his  election  was  valid. 

CASE  OF  BROWNE,  BRODERICK,  AND  WILSON. 

It  is,  however,  declared  that  if  the  four  witnesses  before  named 
were  bribed  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  those  who  bribed  them  were 
equally  guilty  and  that  the  votes  of  Browne,  Broderick,  and  Wilson 
should  also  be  excluded.  But  the  committee  can  find  no  warrant  in 
the  testimony  for  believing  that  either  one  of  said  legislators  was 
moved  by  any  corrupt  influence.  Browne’s  reasons  for  voting  as  he 
did  are  clearly  set  forth  in  his  testimony.  He  was  the  leader  of  a 
faction  of  the  minority  of  the  house,  and  for  certain  political  reasons 
he  thought  it  good  policy  to  aid  in  the  election  of  some  member  of  the 
majority  party  other  than  those  who  had  received  a  considerable 
number  of  votes  in  the  general  assembly. 

The  suggestion  that  his  vote  and  the  votes  of  others  whom  he 
might  be  able  to  influence  should  be  given  to  Mr.  Lorimer  was  first 
made  to  him  by  the  speaker  of  the  Illinois  House  of  Representatives, 
and  there  is  no  suggestion  in  the  testimony  that  Mr.  Shurtleff,  in 
thus  attempting  to  bring  about  Mr.  Lorimer’s  election,  was  actuated 
by  any  improper  motive.  And  the  fact  that  many  members  of  the 
minority  party  in  the  Illinois  General  Assembly  voted  for  Mr.  Lori¬ 
mer  creates  no  well-grounded  suspicion  that  they  were  bribed  to  do 
so.  It  is  not  the  first  instance  in  the  history  of  this  country  in  which 
the  members  of  the  minority  party  of  the  legislature  of  a  State  have 
joined  a  few  of  the  members  of  the  party  in  the  majority  in  electing 
a  Senator  from  the  ranks  of  the  majority  party.  As  to  Senator 
Broderick,  there  is  no  testimony  that  he  was  bribed  to  vote  for  Mr. 
Lorimer.  He  not  only  emphatically  denies  that  he  received,  any 
money  for  his  vote,  but  gives  his  reasons  for  voting  as  he  did. 

Nor  is  there  any  evidence  in  the  record  from  which  a  legal  infer¬ 
ence  could  be  drawn  that  Representative  Wilson  was  bribed  to  vote 
for  Senator  Lorimer.  As  is  hereinafter  stated,  if  Wilson  was  guilty 
of  any  act  of  bribery,  it  was  not  in  connection  with  the  senatorial 
election.  There  is,  therefore,  no  good  ground  for  deducting  his  vote 
from  those  received  by  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Much  of  the  testimony  taken  upon  the  investigation  related  to 
the  alleged  payment  of  money  to  members  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  Illinois  by  one  Robert  E.  Wilson.  This  was  denied  by  Wilson 
and  by  others,  and  after  considering  all  the  evidence  on  that  sub¬ 
ject,  the  committee  are  not  prepared  to  find  that  the  fact  is  estab¬ 
lished.  But  whether  the  sums  of  money  claimed  to  have  been  paid 
were  or  were  not  paid,  that  fact  has  no  relevancy  to  the  matter 
which  the  committee  was  appointed  to  investigate.  If  any  money 
was  disbursed  by  Wilson,  it  is  evident  that  it  was  from  a  fund  which 
was  neither  raised  nor  expended  to  promote  the  election  of  Mr.  Lori¬ 
mer  as  a  Senator  nor  to  reward  those  who  voted  for  him  for  that 
office.  It  was  therefore  no  part  of  the  duty  of  the  subcommittee 
to  inquire  into  either  the  origin  of  the  fund  or  the  purpose  for  which 
it  was  used.  That  matter  was  and  is  one  for  the  proper  officials  of 
the  State  of  Illinois  to  take  cognizance  of  and  one  with  which  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  has  no  concern. 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


15 


The  committee  submit  to  the  Senate  the  testimony  taken  in  the  in¬ 
vestigation,  with  their  report  that,  in  their  opinion,  the  title  of  Mr. 
Lorimer  to  a  seat  in  the  Senate  has  not  been  shown  to  be  invalid  by 
the  use  or  employment  of  corrupt  methods  or  practices,  and  request 
that  they  be  discharged  from  further  consideration  of  Senate  resolu¬ 
tion  No.  264. 

J.  C.  Burrows. 

Chauncey  M.  Depew. 

W.  P.  Dillingham. 

Robert  J.  Gamble. 

W.  B.  Heyburn. 

Morgan  G.  Bulkeley. 

Joseph  W.  Bailey. 

Thomas  H.  Paynter. 

Joseph  F.  Johnston. 

Duncan  U.  Fletcher. 

The  undersigned,  while  fully  concurring  in  the  foregoing  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  desires  to  state  herewith 
his  personal  reasons  therefor: 

There  was  a  vacancy  in  the  Senate  from  Illinois  to  be  filled  by 
the  legislature  in  the  constitutional  manner. 

The  record  of  the  Legislature  of  Illinois  consisted  of  202  votes  on 
joint  ballot,  and  at  a  lawful  time,  May  26,  1909,  the  vote  for  Senator 
was  taken  which  resulted  in  108  votes  being  cast  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
which  result  was  duly  certified  to  the  Senate  and  Mr.  Lorimer  was 
seated. 

No  other  person  has  claimed  the  right  to  hold  the  office  or  to  have 
been  elected  thereto. 

No  claim  has  been  made  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  State  of  Illinois 
that  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  was  not  in  accordance  with  law  or 
that  any  other  person  is  entitled  to  the  office. 

On  June  7,  1910,  more  than  one  year  after  Mr.  Lorimer  had  been 
elected  and  taken  his  oath  of  office  as  a  Senator,  one  Clifford  W. 
Barnes,  claiming  to  act  on  behalf  of  “  The  Legislative  Voters’  League 
of  Illinois,”  presented  charges  in  the  senate,  alleging  on  information 
and  belief  that  three  members  of  the  legislature  who  voted  for  Mr. 
Lorimer  had  been  bribed  to  do  so  by  one  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  who 
was  a  Democrat  and  who  is  shown  to  have  been  indicted  for  such 
act  and  acquitted  by  a  jury  of  the  State  of  Illinois  upon  the  trial 
under  such  indictment. 

When  the  committee  was  organized  at  Chicago  to  hear  the  parties 
who  had  made  the  charges,  Clifford  W.  Barnes  was  called  and  ap¬ 
peared  before  the  committee.  Upon  being  inquired  of  as  to  whether 
he  was  prepared  to  proceed  to  sustain  the  charges  which  he  had  made 
he  informed  the  committee  he  was  not  prepared  to  offer  anything 
in  support  of  such  charges  and  did  not  desire  to  appear  for  that  pur¬ 
pose,  or  any  other,  before  the  committee.  He,  however,  requested 
that  the  Chicago  Tribune,  a  newspaper  published  in  Chicago, 
should  be  permitted,  through  its  representatives,  to  introduce  testi¬ 
mony  before  the  committee  respecting  the  charges  and  to  appear  by 
counsel. 


16 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


The  committee  granted  this  request  and  a  large  amount  of  testi¬ 
mony  was  introduced,  much  of  which  was  outside  the  legitimate 
scope  of  the  inquiry  and  some  of  which  consisted  of  the  testimony  of 
members'  of  the  legislature  establishing  the  unreliability,  and  even 
infamy,  of  such  witnesses.  Men  swore  without  any  apparent  em¬ 
barrassment  that  they  had  sworn  falsely  on  other  occasions ;  had  com¬ 
mitted  perjury;  had  violated  the  laws  of  their  State,  the  laws  of 
morality,  and  the  laws  of  decency.  While  it  is  true  the  truth  may 
be  told  by  bad  men  and  should  not  be  disregarded  altogether  because 
of  the  moral  character  of  the  party  testifying,  yet  in  this  case  the 
moral  obliquity  of  some  of  the  witnesses  called  to  establish  the 
charges  was  such  as  to  make  it  highly  improper  to  accept  such  testi¬ 
mony  as  the  basis  upon  which  any  man’s  character  or  right  to  an  office 
should  depend. 

It  is  not  claimed  nor  was  any  attempt  made  to  show  that  Mr. 
Lorimer  was  in  any  way  connected  with  the  alleged  bribery  or  that 
he  knew  of  any  bribery  or  corrupt  practice  in  connection  with  his 
election. 

The  committee  is  not  charged  with  the  investigation  of  the  personal 
character  of  the  members  of  the  Illinois  Legislature,  nor  should  it 
report  upon  the  same. 

The  right  to  investigate  the  character  of  the  legislative  body  of  a 
State  or  any  member  thereof  belongs  exclusively  to  the  State  and  the 
people  thereof. 

In  the  Senate  every  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  integrity  of  the 
State  as  certified  to  it  by  the  chief  executive  of  the  State,  and  no  pre¬ 
sumption  can  be  indulged  that  the  State  acted  corruptly  in  the  elec¬ 
tion  of  a  Senator. 

When  a  question  as  to  the  right  of  an  incumbent  to  sit  arises  in 
the  Senate  which  is  based  upon  charges  made  by  persons  acting  in 
their  individual  capacity,  the  burden  of  sustaining  such  charges  rests 
on  the  charging  party,  and  such  party  should  be  held  to  strict  proof 
of  the  charges  made,  and  such  charges  may  not  be  made  the  basis 
of  a  dragnet  investigation  into  the  personal  conduct  or  morals  of  the 
members  of  the  legislature  who  participated  in  the  election.  The 
State  must  stand  responsible  for  the  character  of  its  officers,  and  that 
responsibility  is  to  its  own  people  and  not  to  any  branch  of  the 
General  Government. 

The  Senate  may  inquire  into  the  personal  fitness  of  a  man  elected 
by  a  State  to  sit  as  a  Senator  and  may  determine  such  question  within 
the  exercise  of  its  exclusive  powers,  but  in  doing  so  it  may  not  in¬ 
quire  into  the  personal  character  of  the  officers  through  whom  the 
State  acts.  That  question  belongs  to  the  people  of  the  State  ex¬ 
clusively. 

The  Senate  may,  however,  inquire  into  the  manner  of  the  election 
of  a  member  of  its  body  to  the  extent,  and  for  the  purpose  of  ascer¬ 
taining  whether  such  election  was  an  honest  one,  representing  the  will 
of  the  members  of  the  legislative  body  which  certifies  his  election  to 
the  Senate,  and  in  doing  this  we  may  inquire  whether  the  votes  cast 
by  members  of  the  legislature  were  procured  by  bribery  of  such  mem¬ 
bers,  by  the  person  for  whom  they  voted  or  by  anyone  on  behalf  of 
such  person  with  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  such  person,  and  in 


ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


17 


case  we  should  find  that  such  bribery  existed  we  should  find  that  his 
election  was  procured  in  violation  of  the  law,  and  the  person  so 
selected  should  not  be  permitted  to  hold  the  office  of  Senator. 

In  this  case  Mr.  Lorimer  is  neither  charged  nor  shown  to  have 
bribed  or  corrupted  any  member  of  the  legislature  who  voted  for 
him,  or  to  have  furnished  any  money  to  any  person  for  such  purpose, 
neither  has  it  been  shown  that  he  had  any  knowledge  of  any  bribery 
or  corrupt  practice  in  connection  with  his  election.  We  do  not  have 
to  weigh  testimony  to  arrive  at  this  conclusion,  for  there  was  no 
attempt  to  establish  such  conduct  or  knowledge  on  the  part  of  Senator 
Lorimer. 

That  a  sufficient  number  of  Democrats  had  agreed  among  themselves 
to  join  those  Republicans  who  forced  Mr.  Lorimer’s  election  is  clearly 
shown  by  the  testimony,  a  majority  of  the  faction  of  the  Democratic 
party  from  which  such  votes  came  was  acting  under  the  leadership  of 
Mr.  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  who  was  a  member  of  the  house. 

Much  testimony  and  much  scandal  has  been  brought  to  the  attention 
of  the  committee  in  connection  with  Mr.  Browne’s  methods  of  dealing 
with  the  Democrats  who  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  under  his  leadership. 
Men  have  been  charged  with  corrupt  practice,  bribery,  and  perjury. 
The  powers  of  the  courts  of  Illinois  have  been  invoked  to  punish  the 
men  charged  with  these  offenses,  and  trials  have  been  had,  but  no  one 
has  been  convicted.  Another  election  for  the  election  of  members  of 
the  Illinois  Legislature  has  been  held  and  most  of  the  men  charged 
with  crime  and  corruption  have  been  reelected  to  office  by  the  people 
of  Illinois.  Can  it  be  urged  that  the  Senate,  in  determining  the 
truth  of  the  charges  affecting  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  should 
disregard  the  verdict  of  the  courts  and  of  the  people  before  whom  the 
charges  were  urged  and  considered  and  unseat  a  member  upon  testi¬ 
mony  held  insufficient  by  the  people  of  the  State  of  Illinois  ? 

W.  B.  Heyburn. 


S.  Kept.  942,  61-3,  pt.  1 - 2 


61  ft  &ET  1  SENATE  |  EEP°Srt  2'  942 


t  PROCEEDINGS 

- 

BEFORE  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS 

AND  A  SUBCOMMITTEE  THEREOF 

OF  THE 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE  • 

'  )  ■ 

IN  THE  MATTER  OF 

4 

I  \  •  7  ^  s.r  J  *  '  * 

THE  INVESTIGATION  OF  CERTAIN  CHARGES 
AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER,  A  SENATOR 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS 


PRESENTED  BY  MR.  BURROWS 
December  21,  1910. — Ordered  to  be  printed 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

1910 


61st  Congress  ) 
3d  Session  f 


SENATE 


j  Report  No. 
/  Part  2 


942 


PROCEEDINGS 


BEFORE  THE 


COMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS 

AND  A  SUBCOMMITTEE  THEREOF 


OF  THE 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

IN  THE  MATTER  OF 


THE  INVESTIGATION  OF  CERTAIN  CHARGES 
AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER,  A  SENATOR 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS 


PRESENTED  BY  MR.  BURROWS 


December  21,  1910. — Ordered  to  be  printed 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

1910 


PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 


Julius  C.  Burrows.,  of  Michigan,  Chairman. 
Chauncey  M.  Depew,  of  New  York. 

Albert  J.  Beveridge,  of  Indiana. 

William  P.  Dillingham,  of  Vermont. 
Robert  J.  Gamble,  of  South  Dakota. 
Weldon  B.  Heyburn,  of  Idaho. 


Morgan  G.  Bulkeley  of  Connecticut, 
Joseph  W.  Bailey,  oi  Texas. 

James  B.  Frazier,  of  Tennessee. 
Thomas  H.  Paynter,  of  Kentucky. 
Joseph  F.  Johnston,  of  Alabama. 
Duncan  U.  Fletcher,  of  Florida. 


George  M.  Buck,  Clerk. 


2 


LETTER  AND  AFFIDAVIT  OF  CLIFFORD  W.  BARNES  IN  TTTF 

WILLIAM  L0IlIMEIt>  A  SENATOR  FROM  THE  STATE 


Legislative  Voters’  League  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 

Office  of  the  Secretary, 

Hon.  Shelby  M.  Culloh,  ChiCa°°’  June  6’  1910 '• 

United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C. 

t  olY  FEA1?  S?^AT0R  :  A?  president  of  the  Legislative  Voters’  League  of  Illinois, 
I  am  deeply  interested  m  seeing  that  a  thorough  investigation  is  made  of  the 
corrupt  methods  pursued  in  the  state  legislature  in  the  last  two  years  I  feel 

Pnnif  p Uty+t0  Cai1-y0*r  attention  officially  to  facts  that  have  been  developed  in 
Cook  County  and  in  Sangamon  County  within  the  last  month.  1 

I  am  inclosing  herewith  a  statement  covering  these  disclosures,  which  I  beg 
you  to  present  to  the  United  States  Senate.  eg 

Yours,  respectfully,  Clifford  W.  Barnes,  President. 

State  of  Illinois, 

County  of  Cook,  ss: 

Clifford  W.  Barnes,  being  first  duly  sworn,  upon  oath  deposes  and  says : 

tire  VoterS;SL^,ferof0Tmno“e  *“*  P“St  ^  be6n  tbe  presMent  of  the  LeSisla’ 

That  on,  to  wit,  May  2,  1910,  pursuant  to  an  order  entered  in  the  criminal 
.ourt  of  Cook  County,  a  special  grand  jury  was  duly  convened  to  investigate  and 
onsffier  among  other  things,  certain  alleged  charges  of  legislative  bribefy  ffi  the 
forty-sixth  general  assembly  of  the  State  of  Illinois  yintne 

pri0r1t0  said  Ma^  2>  1910>  Charles  A.  White,  a  member  of  the 
?aid  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  submitted  to  said  the  Chicago  Tribune  a 
.onfession  in  which  there  was  contained  and  embodied  certain  facts  acts  and 
^rv!n!StaivieS  reJa^?^  to  said  legislative  bribery  as  aforesaid. 

That  said  confession  of  said  White  was  in  substance  printed,  published  and 
urculated  in  said  the  Chicago  Tribune  on  April  30,  1910,  and  a  full  correct 
me,  and  accurate  copy  of  such  publication,  and,  in  substance,  a  true’ and  cor- 
°f  ?fld  cpatession  so  submitted  to  said  the  Chicago  Tribune  and  so 
P1^  k°  prmts  of  Chicago  and  throughout  the  United  States  is 

:aid  Affidavit  as  Exhib* T™*  reference  theret0  made  »  P"*  <*  this  affiant's 

special  grand  jury,  immediately  after  its  convening  on  May  2  1910 

ormed^and^eiieves  and^thereTorPstrtes^UiPfact  To^be'^n  subsPncV^Pu-inte^l' 

tinea  ins"./ Exhibit  °A 'StoMtaSf  °Ut  tbe  Un“e<i  Stat6S  and  as  «»- 
That  said  special  grand  jury  also  heard  and  considered  the  testimony  of  H  T  C 

s^mSfer-rd  ?riChael  S*  Link’  ^members  of  said  forty  s^xth  fenerai  • 
..  •  ’  1  reference  to  said  legislative  bribery  as  aforesaid  and  that  the 

asln?n°nJ/Vaid  ^“eyer,  Link,  and  White  before  said  special  ^-and  jury 
■  as,  in  effect,  that  each  had  received  certain  moneys,  to  wit,  $1  000  for  casting 
.s  vote  as  a  member  of  the  house  of  representatives  of  Illinois,  Xing  in  2 

asts  in  the  pubiic  a*  °f  «*’ 

uponfi??id  testimony,  among  other  things,  said  special  grand  jury 

Jv^’pt0  Wlt>  tke  6th  day  of  May,  1910,  return  an  indictment  against  one  Lee 

ixth  gpnpr^i16’  t  ien»  fnd  there  the  minority  leader  of  the  house  of  said  forty- 
^th  general  assembly,  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  which  said  indictment  is 
ereto  attached  and  made  a  part  hereof  as  Exhibit  B  indictment  is 


3 


4  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

.aati  ssc  yra&rfiM;  asus  ss 

belief.  ...  . 

And  further  affiant  saith  not.  Clifford  W.  Barnes. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me,  a  notary  public,  on  this  6th  day  of  June, 

A.  D.  1910.  Alfred  C.  Goldsmith, 

[seal.]  Notary  Public,  CooTc  County,  III • 


Exhibit  A. 

On  the  night  of  Monday,  May  24,  1909,  in  company  with  two  of  my  friends 

se Attffis  time  I  had  been  in  rather  hard  circumstances  financially,  and  had  been 
short^f  fuMs  fOT  several  weeks,  having  spent  all  of  the  salary  paid  me >  by  the 
State  of  Illinois— $2,000.  I  borrowed  money  from  one  of  my  friends,  enoug 

rUi  ?ewVayI  prYvtous  to  this  I  had  related  my 

Umm  toTotVouble  ‘themsllves  about°registering.  My  friends  disrobed  and  got 

lD  swtlv  after  they  had  been  in  bed  my  phone  rang.  I  answered  and  found 
thaSt  eZne  was  tlfe  caller.  He  told  me  he  would  be  up  to  my  room  m  a  few 

“  Shortly  afterwards* Browne*  came'up,  an°d  walking' 'into  my  room  he  smiled  and 

doors,  and  windows  weie  cl«sed.  In  a  u  d  «  Yes-  I  can  vote  for  any- 

first,  “Can  you  vote  for  a  Republican?  I  ^Plied  ies^i  Lorimer  for 

thing.”  Browne  asked  this  question  next,  Can  you  ^ore 

STowne’cauZerfmetoekeep  the  matter  strictly  under  my  “hat,”  requesting 
-  meanins  or 
referring  to  the  northern and  told 

boy,  I  can  depend  on  you,  can  I  ?  I  replied  Dy  raying, 

on  my  word.”  _ nri  hl-~  anri  taking  a  book  from  his 

po^ret'contain^ng'th'e  names  of  the  members  of  the  legislature,  he  checked  m3 
name  off  on  the  list  and-said  he  would  depend  on  me.  amount  of  m0nej 

Nothing  was  said  by  either  Browne  ^r^iliiam  Lorimer  for  United  State: 
ffirSyM  =ekfBr ^4So^  *  any  chicke, 

'’our  conference  closed  room  an^madettifs  remark  to  m; 

r^ntorwho  wlreTwale  to  bid:  ‘‘Would  you  vote  for  Lorimer  for  Senator  fc 
$2,000  if  you  were  me?” 


5 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Neither  of  my  friends  would  answer  my  question  for  several  minutes,  and 
nally  one  of  them  ventured  this  remark  : 

“  The  people  in  your  district  will  know  something  was  wrong  and  be  down 
n.you.”  He  continued  his  remarks  by  saying:  “  I  don’t  believe  I  would.” 

We  talked  the  matter  over  freely  for  some  time,  and  after  thinking  the  matter 
ver  I  told  my  friends  I  was  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer. 

We  ordered  more  drinks,  which  were  served  in  our  room,  and  talked  for  some 
ime,  and  I  walked  out  into  the  hall.  I  met  one  of  the  Democratic  representa- 
ives  in  the  hall  and  talked  with  him  several  minutes  about  the  Tippit  faction, 
rtiich  had  deserted  Browne  as  the  minority  leader. 

After  talking  for  quite  a  while  about  the  Tippit  faction  the  representative  I 
ras  talking  with  asked  me  what  I  thought  of  the  Lorimer  deal.  I  avoided 
liking  with  him  about  the  matter  by  answering  his  question  that  I  had  heard 
othing  about  it. 

I  was  afraid  to  discuss  the  question  with  him,  fearing  Browne  might  hear  of 
ur  conversation,  and  I  did  not  want  Browne  to  lose  confidence  in  me. 

While  we  were  talking  Browne  came  through  the  hall.  He  came  up  to  us 
nth  a  worried  and  tired  expression  on  his  face  and  requested  us  in  a  low  voice 
p  go  to  bed.  It  was  after  midnight  then.  Shortly  after  Browne  left  we  corn- 
lied  with  his  request  and  I  went  to  my  room.  I  talked  with  my  friends  a 
hort  time  and  retired  for  the  night. 

Next  morning,  after  having  breakfast,  we  lounged  about  the  lobby  of  the 
otel  for  some  time  and  then  walked  over  to  the  state  house. 

When  the  time  arrived  for  balloting  on  the  senatorial  question  my  friends 
etired  from  the  floor  of  the  house  and  occupied  seats  in  the  gallery ;  their  seats 
,ere  so  located  that  they  could  look  me  square  in  the  face  as  well  as  the  entire 
ssembly. 

The  galleries  were  crowded  to  their  capacity  from  the  appearance  as  viewed 
rom  the  floor  of  the  house. 

The  senate  marched  into  the  house  chamber  and  occupied  seats  that  had  been 
ssigned  them  early  in  tin*  sessions,  which  were  the  two  front  rows  of  seats, 
'he  clerks  of  the  house  and  senate  called  the  roll  of  the  joint  assembly  on  the 
inety-fourth  ballot,  but  no  choice  was  shown  as  a  result  of  the  vote. 

There  was  only  one  ballot  taken,  and  the  joint  assembly  on  the  senatorial 
uestion  adjourned  for  the  day.  The  house  proceeded  with  its  legislative  work 
hortly  after  the  senate  had  retired. 

After  the  adjournment  of  the  house,  I  decided  I  would  have  another  talk 
7ith  Browne  after  reaching  the  hotel  and  have  a  thorough  understanding  as 
o  how  much  I  was  to  receive  for  voting  for  Lorimer  for  Senator. 

Before  going  to  Browne  direct  I  met  Giblin,  Browne’s  stenographer,  and 
old  him  I  did  not  know  what  was  in  the  deal  and  wanted  to  know  more  about 
t.  Giblin  told  me  to  see  Browne  and  have  a  talk  with  him,  saying :  “  It  looks 
retty  good.” 

Giblin  went  to  Browne,  who  was  standing  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel,  and  said 
omething  to  Browne,  which,  I  presume,  was  what  I  had  said  to  him,  for 
irowne  came  direct  to  me  and  requested  me  to  go  to  his  room,  saying  he  wanted 

o  see  me. 

I  waited  for  a  few  minutes  after  Browne  went  up  to  his  room  and  took  the 
levator.  I  knocked  on  his  door,  and  he  opened  the  door.  After  walking  in 
nd  seating  myself,  he  said:  “Charley,  what  seems  to  be  troubling  you?”  I 
eplied :  “  Lee,  I  would  like  to  know  how  much  I  am  going  to  get  for  voting 

or  Lorimer.” 

He  replied:  “You  are  not  afraid  to  trust  that  to  me,  are  you,  old  boy?”  I 
eplied :  “  No ;  but  I  would  like  to  know.” 

Browne  replied :  “  You  will  get  $1,000,  and  it  is  ready  cash,  too,”  saying, 
‘you  won’t  have  to  wait  for  it.”  I  replied:  “  Well,  that  is  what  I  want,  for  I 

teed  it.” 

Browne  replied:  “Now,  don’t  let  anything  worry  you;  just  keep  quiet.”  I 
■eplied:  “All  right,  Lee;  how  much  will  we  get  besides  this  from  the  other 

lources?  ” 

Browne  replied :  “  The  jack  pot  won’t  be  distributed  for  about  three  months 
ifter  adjournment,”  saying,  “  They  have  to  wait  that  long  because  they  are 
vatched  so  close,  but  there  will  be  almost  a  thousand  more  for  you  then.” 

He  continued  by  saying:  “Now,  you  just  keep  quiet  and  stick.  Don’t  get 
veak  and  don’t  listen  to  any  of  their  talk,  for  I  have  got  enough  names  marked 
lown  now  to  put  the  deal  over,  and  will  have  seven  or  eight  to  throw  in  for 
?ood  measure.” 


6  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


I  asked  him  how  many  of  our  men  (Browne’s  men)  he  had,  and  he  replied  by 
saying:  “A  good  many.” 

I  mentioned  several  names  and  asked  if  they  were  in  on  the  deal,  and  Browne 
answered  “y.es  ”  to  some  and  “  no  ”  to  others. 

I  told  Browne  I  had  heard  that  Senator  Hopkins  was  offering  more  for  votes 
than  Lorimer — which  was  a  story  I  conceived  to  see  what  Browne  would  say, 
for  I  had  heard  nothing  of  the  kind. 

Browne  replied  by  saying,  “  Hopkins  is  so  cheap  he  wouldn’t  open  up  in  a 
thousand  years,”  saying,  “  Now,  don’t  listen  to  any  such  talk ;  I  have  done  the 
best  I  could  and  am  doing  the  best  I  can.” 

Browne  implored  me  not  to  talk  to  anyone  about  the  matter,  repeating  again 
that  “  I  am  awfully  damned  suspicious  of  that  place  above  here  they  call 
Joliet”  (meaning  the  Northern  Illinois  State  Penitentiary). 

I  assured  him  again  that  I  would  keep  quiet  and  left  his  room. 

After  going  down  to  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  one  of  my  friends  and  myself 
went  in  the  buffet  of  the  hotel  to  have  a  drink.  We  stepped  up  to  the  bar  and 
ordered.  One  ‘of  the  Democratic  representatives,  a  Browne  Democrat,  was  stand¬ 
ing  near  me.  He  looked  around  and  said:  “  Hello,  4  Whitie,’  how  are  you?” 

I  replied,  “All  right,”  and  invited  him  to  join  us  in  a  drink.  He  was  laughing 
and  seemed  unusually  cheerful  about  something.  He  joined  us  by  ordering  a 
drink  and,  looking  at  me,  with  a  loud  laugh  said :  “  Have  you  been  up  to  the 
trough  yet?”  I  inquired,  “What  trough?”  and  he  said,  “Why,  haven't  you 
been  up  to  the  trough  yet?”  I  replied,  “No.”  He  remarked,  “By  God,  I’ve 
already  been  up  to  the  trough  and  got  mine.”  I 

I  changed  the  subject  as  quick  as  possible  and  after  having  another  drink, 
exchanging  a  few  remarks  of  no  consequence,  we  left  the  buffet. 

My  friend  and  I  lounged  about,  possibly  playing  a  game  or  so  of  pool,  the 
remainder  of  the  afternoon.  We  sat  up  until  late  that  night. 

Next  morning  we  reached  the  statehouse  before  10  o’clock.  I  talked  with 
my  friends,  who  were  seated  on  the  inside  of  the  brass  railing,  at  intervals, 
until  the  time  arrived  for  the  joint  session .  of  the  house  and  senate  to  meet 
on  the  senatorial  question. 

This  was  on  Wednesday,  May  26,  1909.  The  senate  marched  in  the  house 
and  occupied  the  seats  they  had  occupied  on  all  previous  joint  sessions. 

Browne  came  over  to  me  and  said :  “  This  comes  off  on  the  first  ballot ;  now 
don’t  forget.” 

I  replied,  “  All  right,  Lee.” 

He  leaned  over  the  desk  at  the  rear  of  my  seat  and  told  some  of  the  members 
at  the  rear  of  my  seat  the  same  he  had  told  me.  I  was  feeling  rather  shakj 
and  nervous.  I  came  near  telling  Browne  I  would  not  vote  for  Lorimer,  bin 
knew  it  would  result  best. 

I  knew  that  if  I  should  fail  to  go  into  and  be  a  party  to  the  deal  I  would  nol 
be  in  a  position  to  speak  as  I  would  like  to  speak  in  the  future  days,  after  th<i 
corrupt  session  closed.  I  knew  I  would  have  to  be  a  party  to  the  deals  in  ordeij 
to  tell  the  truth  about  the  whole  affair,  and  I  realized  that  to  say  merely  I  hac 
heard  such  to  be  so  would  not  be  the  kind  of  evidence  the  public  demands. 

I  let  myself  be  bribed  and  committed  perjury  for  the  sole  purpose  of  obtaining 
facts  which  could  not  be  denied. 

It  may  sound  all  right  to  hear  some  one  say  they  heard  the  members  wen  I 
bribed  with  large  sums  of  money  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  but  knowing  such  to  b<  i 
true  is  what  is  desirable. 

The  speaker  of  the  house  of  representatives,  Edward  D.  Shurtleff,  as  presidin;; 
officer  of  the  joint  assembly,  thereupon  directed  the  secretary  of  the  senate  t< 
call  the  roll  of  the  senate  to  see  who  was  present.  i 

The  clerk  of  the  house  was  directed  to  call  the  roll  of  the  house  to  see  wh< 

was  present.  .  . 

After  the  roll  call  the  speaker  announced  the  purpose  of  receiving  the  vot 
of  each  member  for  choosing  a  Senator  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  State 
from  March  4.  A.  D.  1909.  for  a  term  of  six  years.  The  joint  assembly  was  in  s  | 
calm  yet  noticeably  pitched  feeling. 

The  galleries  were  crowded  to  their  utmost  capacity  with  both  men  an 
women.  Politicians  from  various  parts  of  the  State,  as  well  as  public  official 
of  national  reputation,  mingled  with  the  throng  that  packed  the  galleries. 

I  noticed  many  politicians  from  the  forty-ninth  district,  from  which  I  wa 
elected,  seated  above  me  on  all  sides  in  the  galleries. 

As  the  vote  proceeded  members  would  rise  to  explain  their  vote,  some  makin 
feeble  attempts  in  explaining  why  they  were  changing  to  Lorimer,  others  d( 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER 


7 


lonncing  in  bitter  language  the  action  of  members,  especially  of  the  Democratic 
nembers,  in  entering  such  a  dastardly  deal  or  combination  to  elect  a  Republican 
tgainst  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  Republicans  of  the  State  as  expressed  at 
he  primary  election  in  August,  1908,  at  which  Senator  Hopkins  was  renomi- 
sated  by  a  large  majority  of  the  Republican  vote  of  the  State  to  succeed  himself. 

As  the  explanation  of  votes  proceeded  excitement  would  ebb  and  flow.  Sena- 
or  Isley  (Democrat)  made  a  bitter  attack  upon  the  action  of  the  Democratic 
nembers  for  being  a  party  to  such  a  loathsome,  cowardly  deal.  He  almost 
charged  open  bribery  in  the  course  of  his  able  and  eloquent  remarks  in  condem- 
lation  of  the  action  of  the  Democrats.  After  the  vote  of  the  senate  had  been 
aken  the  results,  as  announced,  were  as  follows:  Those  voting  for  Albert  J. 
Topkins  (Republican)  were:  Andrus,  Bailey,  Baker,  Barr,  Brown,  Dailey,  Del- 
enback,  Dunlap,  Funk,  Gardner,  Hall,  Hamilton,  Hay,  Helm,  Humphrey,  Hur- 
jurgh,  Jones,  Landee,  Lish,  Lundberg.  McKenzie,  Olson,  Pemberton,  Stewart — 24. 

Those  voting  for  Lorimer,  Republican,  were : 

Messrs.  Ball,  Billings,  Brandt,  °  Broderick,  Clark,  Cruikshank,  Curtis,  Down- 
ng,  Ettelson,  “ Gorman,  “  Hearn,  Henson,  “  Holstlaw,  “  Jandus,  Juul,  McCor- 
nick,  McElvain,  Potter,  “  Rainey — 19. 

Those  with  the  “  “  ”  placed  before  their  names  are  Democratic  senators  who 
^oted  for  Lorimer,  the  Republican  who  cheated  Senator  Hopkins  out  of  his 
selection,  which  he,  Hopkins,  was  entitled  to;  according  to  the  verdict  of  the 
aeople  of  Illinois  at  the  primary  election. 

Those  voting  for  Lawrence  B.  Stringer,  Democrat,  choice  of  the  Democrats  of 
[llinois  at  the  primary  election,  were: 

Messrs.  Burton,  Gibson,  Glackin,  Isley,  Manny,  Tossey,  Womack — 7. 

The  roll  of  the  house  was  called  amidst  intense  excitement,  which  was  created 
Dy  members  explaining  their  votes. 

Before  the  clerk  of  the  house  began  calling  the  roll  Minority  Leader  Lee 
O’Neil  Browne  arose  from  his  seat  and  addressed  the  assembly.  Browne  made 
a  very  poor  and  feeble  attempt  in  explaining  his  vote.  He  declared  all  of  the 
Democrats  released  from  further  obligation  to  vote  for  the  Democratic  candi¬ 
date  and  said  he  thought  it  only  a  fruitless  waste  of  effort  to  continue  voting 
for  a  Democrat. 

Browne  concluded  his  remarks  by  recording  his  vote  for  Lorimer. 

As  the  roll  proceeded  there  was  excitement  which  verged  on  the  brink  of  a 
riot  from  all  sections  of  the  house  as  the  members  wTould  explain  their  votes. 

Representative  George  English,  Democrat,  made  a  bitter  attack  on  such  pro¬ 
cedure,  and  almost  openly  charged  bribery.  He  called  such  action  a  disgrace 
to  the  State  of  Illinois. 

English  made  such  a  bitter  and  fearless  attack  that  when  he  finished  and 
took  his  seat  Browne  “  took  the  floor  ”  again,  and,  pointing  his  finger  at  Eng¬ 
lish,  made  the  remark  that  if  English  would  step  outside  the  statehouse  with 
him  and  repeat  the  remarks  either  English  or  himself  would  never  be  able  to 
utter  such  remarks  again. 

English  rose  to  his  feet  and  made  an  effort  to  get  recognition  from  the 
speaker  to  reply  to  Browne,  but  the  speaker  would  not  recognize  him.  After 
the  roll  call  of  the  house  was  completed  the  results  were  announced  as  follows : 

Those  voting  for  Albert  J.  Hopkins,  Republican,  were : 

Abby,  Adkins,  Bardill,  Brady,  Campbell,  Carter,  Cliff,  Erby,  Flagg,  Fulton, 
Grace,  Gray,  Hagan,  Hamilton,  Holaday,  Hollenbeck,  Hope,  Hull,  Hutzler, 
Ireland,  Jewell,  Keck,  Kerrick,  King,  Kirkpatrick,  Lewis,  Liggett,  Lyon,  Mills, 
Montelius,  Nelson,  Perkins,  Pervier,  Reynolds,  Richter,  Rigney,  Robinson,  Scan- 
lan,  F.  W.  Shepherd,  Stevenson,  Terrill,  Ton,  Welborn,  G.  H.  Wilson,  H.  W. 
Wilson,  Wright — 46. 

Those  voting  for  William  Lorimer,  Republican,  were: 

°Abrahams,  “Allison,  “Alschuler,  Ap  Madoc,  0  Beckemeyer,  Behrens,  Block, 
“Blair,  Brownback,  “Browne,  Burgett,  “Burns,  Bush,  Butts,  “  Cermak,  Chiper- 
field,  Church,  “  Clark,  “  Corcoran,  Crawford,  Curran,  “  De  Wolf,  “  Dillon, 
Dudgeon,  Durfee,  Erickson,  “  Espy,  “  Fahy,  Fieldstack,  Flannigen,  “  Forst, 
0  Foster,  “  Galligan,  “Geshkewich,  Gillespie,  Glade,  “  Griffin,  “  Hilton,  “  Hruby, 
“Kannally,  Kittleman,  Kleeman,  Kowalski,  Lane,  “  Lantz,  Laurence,  Lederer, 
“Link,  Logan,  “Luke,  MacLean,  “McCollum,  “  McGunnell,  “McGuire,  “Mc¬ 
Laughlin,  McMackin,  McNichols,  “Morris,  “  E.  J.  Murphy,  “Murray,  “O’Brien, 
“  O’Neil,  Parker,  Pierson,  “  Poulton,  “  Price,  “  Riley,  Schumacher,  Shanahan, 
“H.  A.  Shephard,  Smejkal,  Soilitt,  “  Staymates,  Stearns,  “Sullivan,  “Tippitt, 
Troyer,  “Walsh,  “Werdell,  “Wheelan,  “White,  0  F.  J.  Wilson,  “  R.  E.  Wilson, 
Vork,  Zinger,  Zipf,  ShurtlefF,  speaker— 87. 


8  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Those  with  the  “  °  ”  placed  before  their  names  are  Democratic  representatives 
who  voted  for  Lorimer,  the  Republican. 

Those  voting  for  Lawrence  B.  Stringer,  Democrat,  the  choice  of  the  Democrats 
at  the  primary  election,  were: 

Bolin,  Briscoe,  Daley,  Donahue,  English,  Etherton,  Finley,  J.  Groves,  W.  M. 
Groves,  Huston,  William  Murphy,  Myers,  Naylor,  O’Toole,"  Richardson,  Scott, 
Shaw — 17. 

After  the  vote  was  completed  a  great  many  of  the  members  began  a  demon¬ 
stration  of  noise  making  by  pounding  on  their  desks  with  books,  with  their  fists, 
and  shouting  as  loud  as  possible,  acting  as  though  they  were  wild  with  satis¬ 
faction  as  to  the  results.  I  pounded  my  desk  with  a  large  book  for  a  few 
seconds. 

I  presume  the  Democrats  who  had  voted  for  William  Lorimer  concluded  it 
was  a  part  of  the  bargain  to  make  a  noisy  demonstration. 

Possibly  some  of  them  felt  like  doing  so,  for  by  casting  their  vote  for  Lorimer 
they  were  at  least  $1,000  better  off  financially,  judging  from  the  amount  that 
was  promised  me,  which  I  afterwards  received.  Possibly  I  could  have  got  more 
than  offered  me  had  I  demanded  more,  but  I  did  not  request  a  larger  sum  when 
the  deal  was  considered. 

When  the  clerk,  during  the  roll  of  the  house,  called  my  name,  “  White,”  to 
which  I  answered  “  Lorimer,”  I  felt  for  a  minute  or  so  as  though  I  had  com¬ 
mitted  some  ineffable  crime;  my  two  friends  sitting  in  the  gallery  where  they 
could  look  me  in  the  face,  I  knew  that  I  was  selling  my  honor  and  manhood  for 
financial  gain.  They  knew  I  was  to  receive  money  for  my  vote,  because  I  had 
taken  them  into  my  confidence  and  told  them  the  secret  of  the  whole  affair. 

The  speaker  rapped  his  gavel  for  order  and  announced  the  vote  as  follows,  as 
the  result  of  the  ninety-fifth  ballot:  Number  of  votes  cast,  200;  for  Albert  J. 
Hopkins,  70;  for  William  Lorimer,  106  ;  for  L.  B.  Stringer,  24. 

The  speaker  as  presiding  officer  of  the  joint  assembly  then  announced  that 
William  Lorimer  was  duly  elected.  Mr.  Lorimer  delivered  an  address  to  the 
joint  assembly,  but  not  an  impressive  talk  by  any  means.  Mr.  Hopkins  later 
made  a  beautiful  and  impressive  talk,  saying  he  felt  that  the  honorable  fight 
that  had  been  conducted  by  his  loyal  friends  called  upon  him  to  express  liis 
gratitude. 

The  American  believes  in  a  fair  decision,  whether  in  a  game  of  sport  or  in 
politics.  I  believe  in  a  fair  decision  in  sport  and  business  as  well  as  politics. 
The  man  that  wins  on  the  square  deserves  the  verdict  in  his  favor. 

The  Lorimer  decision  was  a  corrupt,  unjust  decision.  Lormer  fouled  his  op¬ 
ponent.  He  took  advantage  of  his  money  strength,  his  financial  backing,  to 
have  a  decision  rendered  in  his  favor. 

Who  backed  Lorimer? 

Who  put  up  the  money? 

Was  it  a  Chicago  money  king  or  a  number  of  Chicago  money  kings  that  put 
up  the  money  to  secure  Lorimer’s  election  for  protection  and  a  pull  in  Wash¬ 
ington  ? 

Surely  Lorimer  did  not  spend  the  money  it  required  to  secure  his  election  out 
of  his  own  pocket.  He  has  represented  the  Sixth  Congressional  District,  located 
in  Chicago,  known  politically  as  the  Armour  district,  in  Congress  for  a  number 
of  years. 

Lorimer  was  elected  by  the  required  number  of  votes,  however,  and  under  the 
law  is  a  United  States  Senator  from  Illinois.  Is  Lorimer  the  only  Senator  in 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  that  secured  his  election  by  such  methods? 
Let  us  hope  so. 

With  the  adjournment  of  the  joint  assembly  session  on  the  senatorial  question 
went  down  in  the  pages  of  history  one  of  the  most  disgraceful  elections  of  a 
United  States  Senator  in  the  history  of  the  nation.  Honest  men  were  induced 
to  commit  perjury;  honest  men  committed  their  first  crime;  honest  men  were 
made  thieves  through  the  luring  temptations  of  the  thousand  dollars  paid  the 
ordinary  Democrat  for  his  vote. 

The  house  of  representatives  proceeded  with  its  business  as  though  nothing 
of  importance  had  taken  place.  Bills  were  discussed  and  action  taken  deciding 
their  destiny. 

Good  bills  met  their  doom,  as  did  Senator  Hopkins. 

Bad  bills  were  rushed  through,  as  was  William  Lorimer. 

At  the  close  of  the  week’s  session,  dreading  the  criticism  that  awaited  me  in 
my  district  for  my  actions,  I  decided  to  go  to  Chicago. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  9 

At  the  close  of  the  session  of  the  following  week  I  remained  in  Springfield 
itil  late  Saturday  afternoon.  I  went  to  Browne  and  asked  him  if  he  could 
?commodate  me  with  a  little  money.  Browne  said  “  Yes.” 

We  stepped  into  the  toilet  room,  and  he  gave  me  a  bill,  saying,  “There  is 
00;  it  will  help  you  a  few  days.” 

After  leaving  Browne  I  went  to  my  room  and,  looking  at  the  $100  bill,  be- 
me  suspicious  of  it.  There  were  several  blue-pencil  marks  on  the  bill,  and 
thought  possibly  it  might  have  been  marked.  I  went  to  Browne  again  and 
;ked  him  if  the  bill  was  all  right,  telling  him  I  felt  a  little  funny  about  it. 

He  said  yes,  it  was  all  right,  and  told  me  to  hand  it  to  him,  which  I  did.  I 
umpled  the  bill  up  in  my  hand  and  slipped  it  to  Browne,  so  that  no  one  would 
>tice  me. 

Browne  took  the  bill  and  had  the  cashier  of  the  hotel  (St.  Nicholas)  change 
into  twenties  and  tens. 

We  walked  down  Jefferson  street  and  over  to  the  office  of  the  Illinois  Traction 
ornpany.  On  my  way  over  to  the  traction  company  Browne  slipped  the  money 
my  hand,  and  I  immediately  put  it  in  my  pocket  without  counting  it. 

After  we  returned  to  the  hotel  I  counted  the  money  and  found  that  there  was 
!  00  in  $20  and  $10  bills. 

Before  leaving  Springfield  I  told  Browne  I  would  like  to  get  the  remainder 
«  the  thousand  dollars  as  soon  as  possible,  telling  him  I  owed  some  debts  and 
ns  in  need  of  the  money  bad. 

Browne  told  me  he  would  be  able  to  give  it  to  me  in  a  few  days  and  requested 
te  to  inform  him  if  I  would  be  in  Chicago  in  the  near  future.  The  legislature 
1  0  adjourned  sine  die,  and  a  few  days  after  reaching  O’ Fallon  I  wrote  Browne 
Better,  telling  him  I  would  be  in  Chicago  in  a  few  days  and  requesting  him 
1  let  me  know  if  I  could  see  him  there. 

Browne  informed  me  that  he  would  see  me  at  the  Briggs  House.  This  was 
i  June,  and  I  informed  one  of  my  friends  that  I  was  going  to  Chicago  to  get 
1e  remainder  of  the  Lorimer  money.  This  was  the  friend  I  had  with  me  dur- 
U  the  session  of  the  legislature. 

I  reached  Chicago  and  went  direct  to  the  Briggs  House.  After  registering  I 
hated  Browne,  who  was  seated  at  one  of  the  writing  desks  provided  for 
lests  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel.  I  stepped  up  beside  him  and  greeted  him  by 
tying:  “Hello,  Lee,  how  are  you?” 

Browne  continued  to  write  without  looking  up  or  apparently  without  recog- 
[ing  me.  I  felt  the  chilly  reception  and  began  to  realize  that  my  presence 
us  not  so  welcome  as  it  had  been  while  in  Springfield.  I  knew  Browne  knew 
tit  it  was  me  addressing  him  with  the  friendly  greeting,  but  his  work  had 
ten  accomplished  to  his  own  satisfaction  and  gain,  and  I  began  to  get  my 
tes  opened  to  the  fact  that,  the  “friendly  interest”  he  had  been  so  keen  to 
cmonstrate  in  my  behalf  while  in  Springfield  was  merely  profitable  diplomacy 
t  was  pursuing. 

Browne  continued  to  write  for  several  minutes,  and,  looking  up  with  a  cool, 
:m,  expressionless  greeting,  said:  “How  are  you?  I’ll  see  you  in  a  few 
mutes.”  I  replied,  “All  right,”  and  walked  away. 

When  he  finished  his  writing,  he  walked  about  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  a  few 
cnutes  and  came  over  to  me.  He  invited  me  to  the  buffet  with  him  to  have  a 
2ink.  We  had  a  few  drinks,  and  Browne  requested  me  to  go  to  his  room  with 
tu.  We  sat  in  his  room  and  talked  over  political  questions  briefly,  discussed 
n-ious  amusements  for  several  minutes,  and  Browne  suggested  we  attend  one  • 
]the  theaters,  but  after  studying  a  little  said  that  he  would  have  to  be  up  early 
p  see  some  parties  and  decided  to  stay  in  the  hotel  for  the  night.  I  told  him 
tit  I  thought  I  would  go  to  some  show,  and  he  Inquired  of  me  if  I  had  any 
-  ney.  I  told  him  that  I  had  about  $3  and  thought  it  would  be  enough. 

3rowne  took  a  roll  of  bills  out  of  his  pocket  and  counted  out  $50  in  $10  and 
bills  and  handed  me  the  $50,  saying: 

‘  Now,  don’t  go  out  and  ‘  blow  ’  all  of  that  in  to-night.” 

3rowne  continued  by  saying  that  he  would  not  give  me  any  more  money  until 
fcvas  ready  to  leave  Chicago,  saying  I  would  spend  it  before  leaving  the  city, 
[old  him  I  was  going  to  leave  the  next  morning,  and  he  replied : 

‘  You  come  to  my  room  in  the  morning  by  9  o’clock  and  I  will  give  you  the 
>ance  of  the  Lorimer  money  coming  to  you,”  saying,  “Now,  that  makes  $150 
have  given  you,  don’t  it?” 
replied  “  Yes.” 

Vfter  talking  about  questions  of  a  political  nature  for  a  few  minutes  I  left 
3  room  and  went  to  a  show.  The  next  morning  I  went  to  his  room  and  found 


10  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


him  waiting  for  me.  Browne  had  a  belt,  made  of  a  heavy,  light-blue  cloth 
about  10  inches  wide,  fastened  about  his  body  with  a  number  of  safety  pins. 

The  belt  bulged  out  as  if  it  contained  something,  and  I  presume  it  was  money 
for  I  remarked  to  Browne,  saying : 

“  Lee,  you  ought  to  be  careful,  going  around  with  all  of  that  money  on  you 
Some  one  is  liable  to  rob  you.” 

He  replied  in  these  remarks : 

“  I  was  standing  on  the  street  talking  with  a  friend  yesterday  and  had  it  in  j 
big  book  in  my  hip  pocket,  and  a  fellow  rubbed  up  against  me  and  looked  aroum 
as  though  he  didn’t  like  it.  But  I  guess  if  he  had  known  there  was  ove 
$30,000  in  that  book  he  might  not  have  been  so  apt  to  look  sore  about  it.” 

I  spoke  to  him  again  about  being  careful,  and  he  picked  up  his  revolver  layinj 
on  the  table  and  said  he  had  a  trusty  friend  with  him  everywhere  he  went. 

We  discussed  freely  the  actions  of  members  on  various  legislative  proposition 
and  talk  about  the  senatorial  deal. 

Browne  talked  considerable  about  other  deals  and  said  the  governor  ha( 
vetoed  one  bill  already  that  there  was  $35,000  “  put  up  ”  to  secure  its  passage 
He  said  if  the  governor  had  not  vetoed  the  bill  it  would  have  helped  the  “  jacl 
pot  ”  out  considerable. 

The  words  “jack  pot”  are  the  words  which  are  used  by  the  members  ii 
speaking  of  other  money  “  put  up  ”  or  paid  by  people  or  corporations  to  secur 
the  passage  of  legislation  to  their  interest  or  to  defeat  legislation  detrimenta 
to  their  interests.  Such  money  is  collected  by  the  leaders  or  members  desig 
nated  to  make  the  deals  by  the  leaders  of  the  house  of  representatives  and  i 
held  by  the  house  or  senate  organization  until  after  the  adjournment  of  th 
legislature. 

It  is  then  divided  by  the  leaders,  and  the  amount  to  be  given  the  member 
who  support  the  organization  is  decided  upon  and  turned  over  to  the  respectiv 
leaders  for  distribution  to  their  supporters. 

Browne  talked  about  a  few  other  matters  that  were  of  no  consequence,  am 
reaching  in  his  pocket  took  a  large  roll  of  bills — Currency — out  and  counts 
seventeen  $50  bills  out  on  the  table.  He  handed  me  the  money  with  thes 
remarks :  “  There  is  $850,  and  with  the  $150  I  have  already  given  you  tha 
makes  the  $1,000;  all  of  your  Lorimer  money.”  Continuing,  he  said:  “Abou 
the  15th.  of  July  I  will  be  able  to  give  you  about  that  much  more,  or  possibl 
a  little  more  than  that,  and  it  will  put  you  on  ‘easy  street  ’  for  awhile.” 

I  took  the  $850  and  put  it  in  an  envelope  and  placed  it  in  my  inside  coa 
pocket.  Browne  noticed  me  do  this  and  told  me  I  would  lose  it  there.  H 
picked  up  a  safety  pin  from  the  table  and  came  over  to  me  and  pinned  th 
envelope  to  my  coat  pocket.  I  thanked  him,  and  he  continued  talking  b 
saying : 

“  Now,  don’t  go  home  and  pass  those  $50  bills  over  the  saloon  counters  o 
around  anv  place  where  people  will  become  suspicious  of  you.” 

I  promised  him  I  would  be  careful,  but  with  all  due  respect  to  the  advic 
and  caution  Browne  gave  me  I  showed  the  money  to  my  friend  and  others  an 
made  no  secret  of  having  the  money.  There  were  some  people  who  had  thei 
suspicions  of  me  accepting  bribe  money  and  made  remarks  about  the  $50  bill; 
My  friend  had  some  of  them  changed  and  told  me  one  man  asked  him  if  ther 
was  not  a  lot  of  bribery  going  on  among  the  members. 

Browne  at  that  time  continued  talking  and  said :  “  You  see,  I  ought  to  gf 
more  out  of  it  than  the  balance  of  you,  because  I  run  an  awful  chance,  but 
can’t  tell  some  of  these  fellows  that.”  J 

He  went  on  by  saying :  “  I  am  going  to  handle  the  money  for  our  fellow 
myself,”  saying  that  certain  Chicago  members  wanted  him  to  turn  over  to  thei 
the  money  that  was  to  be  given  the  Chicago  members,  and  that  they  woul 
give  it  to' them,  but  Browne  said  he  told  them  he  wouldn’t  do  it.  He  also  sai 
to  me:  “I  will  be  in  St.  Louis  in  a  few  days  and  have  our  fellows  in  souther 
Illinois  to  meet  me  there  and  give  them  their  Lorimer  money.” 

I  requested  him  to  let  me  know  when  he  would  reach  St.  Louis  and  I  woul 
come  over  and  meet  him  and  the  other  members,  but  he  did  not  let  me  knoi 
when  he  was  in  St.  Louis. 

I  left  Chicago,  and  upon  reaching  home  I  set  about  paying  off  several  hundre 
dollars  of  debts  standing  against  me.  After  getting  my  financial  affairs  straigb 
ened  out,  I  left  in  company  with  one  of  my  friends  for  a  visit  to  the  eastern  pa: 
of  Tennessee.  Before  leaving  for  the  mountain  country  we  prepared  ourselvt 
for  an  enjoyable  visit.  Our  expenses  were  considerable  on  this  pleasure  visi 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  H 


md  we  soon  found  that  we  had  spent  about  all  of  the  money  we  had.  We  came 
>ack  to  Illinois  and  anxiously  waited  for  some  news  about  the  other  money  the 
!  jack-pot  ”  money. 

After  waiting  a  few  days  I  received  the  following  telegram  from  Chicago : 


Chicago,  July  1A,  1909. 

don.  Chas.  A.  White,  O' Fallon,  III.: 

Meet  me  to-morrow  forenoon  without  fail  at  Southern  Hotel,  St.  Louis.  Wire 
ue  answer  at  once,  care  Briggs  House,  Chicago. 

Robert  E.  Wilson. 


I  answered  the  telegram,  stating  I  would  meet  him  as  requested.  When  I 
ead  the  telegram  I  was 'under  the  impression  that  Browne  would  be  in  St.  Louis, 
ut  when  I  reached  the  Southern  Hotel  the  next  morning,  July  15,  1909,  I  found 
Vilson  was  the  correct  man. 

On  my  way  down  Broadway,  in  St.  Louis,  I  met  Representative  Beckemeyer, 
ne  of  the  Browne  Democrats,  standing  on  Broadway,  near  Olive  street,  looking 
t  the  workmen  as  they  were  performing  hazardous  work  on  the  construction  of 
he  new  Wells  Building.  I  spoke  to  Beckemeyer,  and  asked  him  what  he  was 
oing  in  St.  Louis.  He  told  me  that  he  was  over  there  on  a  little  business. 

I  went  on  down  to  the  Southern  Hotel,  and,  upon  entering  the  lobby  of  the 
otel,  I  found  Representative  Charles  S.  Luke,  Democrat;  Representative  Joseph 
1.  Clark,  Democrat;  and  Representative  Harry  A.  Shepherd,  Democrat,  seated 
ear  the  entrance.  I  walked  up  to  them  and  shook  hands  with  all  of  them, 
'hey  told  me  that  Representative  Robert  E.  Wilson  had  stepped  out  with  Repre- 
entative  Michael  S.  Link,  Democrat,  and  would  be  back  in  a  few  minutes. 

(  We  talked  about  questions  of  little  importance  until  Wilson  and  Link  arrived, 
'hey  came  in  and  boarded  the  elevator  and  went  up  to  Wilson’s  room.  Shepherd 
nd  Clark  went  up  also,  shortly  after  Wilson  and  Link  went  up,  and  left  Luke 
nd  myself  sitting  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel. 

Luke  was  angry  and  stated  that  we  were  getting  a  dirty  deal.  Luke  said  he 
ould  have  gotten  $1,500  at  the  beginning  of  the  session  and  was  sorry  he  did  not 
ike  it.  He  said :  “  They  are  only  giving  me  $900  now,  and  it  ain’t  right,  for  I 
ught  to  have  more.” 

He  appeared  to  be  very  angry  toward  Browne  and  called  Browne  names.  I 
liked  with  Luke  about  the  Lorimer  deal  and  tried  to  lead  Luke  to  believe  that  I 
id  not  get  anything  for  voting  for  Lorimer.  Luke  answered  me  by  saying : 
Yes,  you  did ;  you  got  $1,000,  just  what  we  all  got,  except  the  leaders,  and  it’s 
)  be  expected  they  get  more  than  we  do.”  I  asked  him  how  he  knew  I  did,  and 
e  replied  :  “  Well,  I  saw  it  counted  out  to  be  given  to  you.”  I  asked  him  if  he 
Dt  his,  and  he  said :  “  Yes ;  I  made  my  deal  with  Lorimer  direct.”  Luke  con- 
nued  talking  by  saying  we  fellows  down  the  State  were  getting  a  rotten  deal  on 
le  “divvy”  out  of  the  “jack-pot”  end  of  it,  saying;  “I  am  going  to  write 
rowne  a  letter  and  give  him  hell.” 

We  did  not  talk  very  much  longer  and  went  upstairs  to  Wilson’s  room.  We 
ent  in  the  room,  and  I  shook  hands  with  Wilson  and  Link.  We  sat  around 
tid  talked  about  unimportant  questions,  having  an  occasional  drink  and  cigars 

irved  us. 

Wilson  called  Shepherd  in  the  bathroom,  and  I  could  hear  them  talking  real 
>w,  but  couldn’t  understand  what  they  were  saying.  They  weren’t  in  the 
)om  very  long,  and  when  they  came  out  Wilson  called  me  in  the  bathroom.  I 
ent  in,  and  Wilson  counted  nine  $100  bills  into  my  hand,  saying:  “That  is  all 
:  it,  and  I  am  glad  to  be  relieved  of  the  burden.” 

Wilson  continued  talking  and  told  me  Browne  was  sick  and  had  requested 
im  to  come  to  St.  Louis  for  him  in  order  not  to  disappoint  us  fellows. 

I  took  the  $900  and  put  it  in  my  purse  and  told  Wilson  I  was  satisfied. 
Tilson  told  me  that  the  governor  had  vetoed  some  of  the  hills;  that  there  was 
msiderable  money  “put  up”  to  secure  their  passage,  saying:  “  If‘Jhe  hadn’t 
one  so,  it  would  help  out  considerable.” 

Wilson  said  they  didn’t  get  as  much  as  they  expected  to  get,  but  that  Browne 
ould  explain  matters  more  clearly  the  next  time  he  saw  me.  Wilson  and  I 
ent  back  into  the  room  where  the  other  members  were,  and  we  all  sat  around 
id  talked  for  a  short  while.  Wilson  was  informed  he  could  get  a  train  at 
‘•02  on  the  Chicago  and  Alton  road  for  Chicago,  and  began  to  make  prepara- 
on  to  get  the  train  for  Chicago. 

While  Wilson  was  getting  ready  Link  came  over  to  me  and  said:  “Charley 
e  fellows  down  the  State  get  the  dirty  end  of  it,  don’t  we?  ” 


12  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER, 


I  replied  in  a  low  voice,  “Yes.”  Wilson  got  ready  and  we  went  downstairs. 
Shepherd,  Link,  and  Clark  bid  Wilson  good-by  and  went  away. 

Wilson,  Luke,  and  myself  talked  for  several  minutes.  Luke  told  Wilson  in  my 
presence  in  the  door  of  the  hotel  that  he  was  going  to  write  Browne  and  wanted 
him  (Wilson)  as  a  favor  to  tell  Browne  for  him  he  was  not  satisfied,  and  that 
he  thought  he  had  got  a  “dirty  deal.”  Wilson  told  Luke  he  would  tell  Browne 
for  him. 

I  went  to  the  Union  Station  with  Wilson  and  bid  him  good-by.  He  had  but  a 
few  minutes  to  board  his  train,  the  12.02  Chicago  and  Alton  train,  and  I  did 
not  have  an  opportunity  to  talk  with  him. 

On  my  way  back  to  East  St.  Louis  I  stopped  at  the  Third  National  Bank  and 
had  three  of  the  $100  bills  changed  into  smaller  money. 

When  I  reached  my  office  in  East  St.  Louis  I  told  my  friend,  whom  I  had 
with  me  during  the  session  of  the  legislature,  and  who  knew  I  was  to  receive 
the  $1,000  for  voting  for  Lorimer,  as  well  as  the  $900,  or  whatever  the  amount 
was  to  be,  out  of  the  “  jack  pot,”  that  I  had  got  all  of  it.  He  had  seen  the 
telegram  the  day  before  and  knew  what  it  meant. 

I  showed  him  the  money.  Six  $100  bills  and  $300  in  smaller  bills.  He  laughed 
and  remarked  that  it  was  a  pretty  fair  position,  or  office,  to  be  a  representative 
when  it  came  to  a  question  of  money. 

I  paid  off  all  of  the  other  debts  that  had  accumulated  and  went  to  Chicago 
for  several  days  of  additional  vacation. 


Exhibit  B. 

[Exhibit  B  consists  of  a  copy  of  an  indictment  found  by  the  grand  jury  of 
Cook  County,  Ill.,  against  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  containing  thirteen  counts,  each 
count  charging  said  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  with  bribing  Charles  A.  White  to  vote 
for  William  Lorimer  for  the  office  of  Senator  of  the  United  States  for  the  State 
of  Illinois.] 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CERTAIN  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM 
LORIMER,  A  SENATOR  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 


THURSDAY,  SEPTEMBER  22,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

^  The  first  public  hearing  in  the  above-entitled  matter  was  held  at  the 
Congress  Hotel,  Chicago,  Ill.,  on  Thursday  morning,  September  22, 
910,  the  following  members  of  the  subcommittee  being  present:  Hon. 
.  C.  Burrows,  chairman;  Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble,  South  Dakota; 
Ion.  Weldon  B.  Heyburn,  Idaho;  Hon.  Thomas  H.  Paynter,  Ken- 
icky;  Hon.  Joseph  F.  Johnston,  Alabama. 

Senator  William  Lorimer,  with  his  counsel,  Hon.  Elbridge  Hanecy, 
[r.  Clifford  W.  Barnes,  representing  the  Legislative  Voters’  League 
f  the  State  of  Illinois,  together  with  representatives  of  the  Chicago 
>aily  Tribune.  * 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  be  in  order,  and  the  chair 
esires  to  make  the  following  preliminary  statement  : 

On  June  20,  1910,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  passed  the  fol¬ 
lowing  resolution: 

Resolved ,  That  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  the  Senate,  or 
iy  subcommittee  thereof,  be  authorized  and  directed  to  investigate  certain 
larges  against  William  Lorimer,  a  Senator  from  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  to 
port  to  the  Senate  whether  in  the  election  of  said  William  Lorimer  as’ a  Sena- 
the  United  States  from  said  State  of  Illinois,  there  were  used  or  ein- 
oyed  corrupt  methods  or  practices;  that  said  committee  or  subcommittee  be 
athorized  to  sit  during  the  sessions  of  the  Senate  and  during  any  recess  of  the 
mate  or  of  Congress,  to  hold  its  sessions  at  such  place  or  places  as  it  shall 
•>em  most  convenient  for  the  purposes  of  the  investigation,  to  employ  a  stenog- 
pher,  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  to  administer  oaths,  and  that  the 
<penses  of  the  inquiry  shall  be  paid  from  the  contingent  fund  of  the  Senate 
non  vouchers  to  be  approved  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee. 

In  obedience  to  this  resolution  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and 
lections  designated  a  subcommittee  of  seven  members,  a  quorum  of 
’Inch  subcommittee  is  now  present,  consisting  of  Senators  J.  C.  Bur- 
iws  of  Michigan,  chairman;  Robert  J.  Gamble,  of  South  Dakota; 
eldon  B.  Heyburn,  of  Idaho;  Thomas  IT.  Paynter,  of  Kentucky; 
ad  Joseph  I.  Johnston,  of  Alabama;  and  propose  to  proceed  to  the 
(ecution  of  the  order  of  the  Senate. 

Among  the  papers  presented  to  the  Senate  is  a  communication  from 
Hi  fiord  W.  Barnes,  president  of  the  Legislative  Voters’  League  of 
1e  State  of  Illinois,  consisting  of  the  affidavit  of  said  Clifford  W. 
.arnes  and  certain  exhibits  thereto  attached,  which  papers  charge 
^nator  Lorimer  with  bribery  and  corrupt  practices  in  securing  his 
action  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

The  committee  is  ready  now  to  proceed  with  the  execution  of  the 
(der  of  the  Senate. 


13 


14  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


The  committee  understands  that  Mr.  Barnes,  the  president  of  the 
Legislative  Voters’  League,  and  Senator  Lorimer  are  both  present, 
and  the  committee  will  be  pleased  to  hear  any  suggestions  they  may 
have  to  make  in  furtherance  of  the  inquiry. 

Mr.  Barnes.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  my  first  suggestion  is 
in  the  way  of  a  petition,  which,  with  the  consent  of  the  committee,  I 
would  like  to  read. 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Barnes  (reading)  : 


Hon.  Julius  C.  Burrows, 

United  States  Senator, 

Chairman  Subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections. 

Sir  :  The  undersigned  on  June  7,  1910,  presented  to  the  honorable  Senate  of 
the  United  States  a  communication  (which  is  to  be  found  pn  page  7811  of  volume 
45,  page  2,  of  the  Congressional  Record  of  the  Sixty-first  Congress),  which 
communication  contained  the  charges  made  in  the  Chicago  Tribune  of  bribery 
and  the  use  of  corrupt  methods  and  practices  in  the  election  by  the  forty-sixth 
Illinois  general  assembly  of  William  Lorimer  to  the  United  States  Senate. 

On  June  20,  1910,  the  United  States  Senate  passed  a  resolution  authorizing 
and  directing  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  or  any  subcommittee 
thereof  to  investigate  “  certain  charges  ”  against  William  Lorimer,  a  Senator, 
and  to  report  whether  or  not  in  the  election  of  said  Lorimer  as  such  Senator 
there  were  “  used  or  employed  corrupt  methods  or  practices.” 

The  “certain  charges”  referred  to  in  the  resolution  of  June  20,  1910,  were 
either  those  embodied  in  the  communication  of  the  undersigned  (as  those  were 
the  only  charges  ever  filed  or  presented  against  Mr.  Lorimer  to  the  United 
States  Senate)  or  refer  to  the  charges  of  conspiracy,  etc.,  made  by  Mr.  Lorimer 
against  the  Chicago  Tribune  in  his  speech  to  the  Lnited  States  Senate  on  May 

2s  1910 

I  have  seen  the  communication  addressed  to  you  by  the  Chicago  Tribune  under 
date  of  September  19,  1910,  in  which  communication  the  Chicago  Tribune  asked 
permission  “  to  present  evidence  to  your  body  to  sustain  such  charges,”  referring 
to  the  charges  which  you  are  called  upon  to  investigate  uudei  the  Senate 

resolution  of  June  20,  1910.  .  ,  ,  ,  . 

The  statements  contained  in  my  communication  to  the  Senate,  presented  tc 
that  body  on  June  7,  1910,  were  based  largely  upon  evidence  disclosed  to  me  by 
the  Chicago  Tribune.  It  has  the  documentary  and  oral  evidence,  names  of  wit¬ 
nesses,  etc.,  which,  if  they  are  permitted  to  fully  present  to  the  honorable  sub¬ 
committee  of  which  you  are  chairman,  will  support  the  charges  referred  to. 

The  Chicago  Tribune  has  spent  much  time  and  energy  in  the  collection  of  this 
evidence,  and  inasmuch  as  they  have  requested  the  opportunity  to  be  presenl 
and  present  such  evidence  through  their  counsel,  and  inasmuch  as  the  under 
signed  is  fully  convinced  that  it  is  the  desire  of  your  subcommittee  to  ascertair 
the  truth  of  these  charges  and  to  procure  all  evidence  tending  to  prove  or  dis 
prove  such  charges  from  whatever  source  it  is  obtainable,  I  join  in  the  Cfiicagc 
Tribune’s  request  of  September  19.  1910,  that  they  be  permitted  “  to  preseni 
evidence  to  your  body  to  sustain  such  charges  and  to  be  represented  by  counse 
on  the  hearings  of  the  matters  to  be  heard  and  investigated  by  your  honorable 


subcommittee.” 

Respectfully, 


Clifford  W.  Barnes. 


Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  further  request  to  make?  . 

Mr.  Barnes.  Yes;  it  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  add  jus 
a  word,  that  the  time  and  effort  which  the  Tribune  has  put  mto  tin 
investigation  clearly  places  them  in  the  front  rank  as  a  party  qua  1  met 
to  °ive  testimony.  It  is  quite  without  the  province  of  the  Legislation 
Voters’  League  to  employ  lawyers  in  this  matter,  nor  have  we  th< 
evidence  at  hand  which  would  make  it  possible  for  us  to  submit  t< 
your  honorable  body  such  testimony  as  would  give  you  the  prope 
data  on  which  you  should  act.  I  feel  confident  that  the  Tribune  cal 
do  this.  I  feel  confident,  too,  that  whatever  prejudice  may  hav 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  15 


listed  in  the  past  between  the  Tribune  and  Senator  Lorimer,  there 
in  this  case  something  that  the  people  are  deeply  interested  in, 
id  that  the  people  have  confidence  in  the  justice  of  the  campaign 
jade  by  the  Tribune  and  the  facts  which  they  are  qualified  to  present. 
Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Barnes,  I  understand  you  do  not  care  to 
opear  personally  or  by  attorney? 

Mr.  Barnes.  No,  sir;  I  should  prefer  not  to. 

Senator  Burrows.  Senator  Lorimer,  have  you  any  suggestions  to 
i  bmit  to  the  committee  at  this  time  ? 

Senator  Lorimer.  Nothing  more  than  to  state  that  my  counsel, 
,idge  Hanecy,  is  with  me,  and  if  the  committee  desires  to  hear  him 
a  any  matter  that  they  have  under  consideration  as  representing 
is,  I  would  be  glad  to  have  him  state  my  side  of  the  case. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  has  not  yet  determined  the 
r  estion  of  counsel.  But,  speaking  outside  of  the  committee  for  the 
me  being,  I  think  there  will  be  no  objection  to  hearing  Judge 
ianecy,  if  he  has  any  suggestions  to  make  on  behalf  of  Senator 
brimer.  This  is  permitted  for  the  purposes  only  of  this  hearing, 
\  thout  determining  the  question  of  final  allowance  of  counsel. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
ihave  no  desire  to  preclude  the  committee  from  excluding  me  or 
s.y  other  counsel  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  There  is  nobody  more  anxious 

I  an  Mr.  Lorimer  is  to  have  a  speedy  hearing  and  determination  of 
cestions  involved  here.  That  has  been  his  position  all  the  time,  and 
i  has  not  changed  in  that  position  in  any  respect. 

There  are  two  very  serious  reasons  why  this  investigation  should 

I I  proceed  at  the  present  time. 

The  charges  made  by  Mr.  Barnes  in  June  were  presented  to  the 
£and  jury  through  the  Chicago  Tribune  and  its  witnesses.  The 
rate’s  attorney  took  them  up,  investigated  the  whole  matter  very 
toroughly,  and  presented  the  charges  made  by  Mr.  Barnes  and  the 
ribune  to  the  grand  jury  of  this  county.  An  indictment  was  found 
L  the  grand  jury  against  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  the  leader  of  the 
bmocratic  party  in  the  legislature.  That  indictment  was  found 
< :  the  7th  of  May.  On  the  7th  of  June  Mr.  Browne  was  put  upon 
t  al  without  any  further  time  to  prepare,  over  his  objection  and 
tat  of  his  counsel,  but  he  was  forced  to  trial  and  wras  tried  on  that 
iiictment.  The  reason  why  I  think  that  is  quite  pertinent  here  is 
tat  the  charges  made  by  Mr.  Barnes  are  the  charges  set  forth  in 
tat  indictment  and  the  Congressional  Record  has  a  verbatim  copy 
c  that  indictment,  which  consists  of  13  counts.  It  is  to  be  found  in 
1 3  Congressional  Record  of  June  7.  Upon  that  hearing  before  the 

<  urt  and  a  jury  in  this  county  there  was  a  disagreement  of  the 
jry.  The  trial  of  that  case  was  begun  on  the  7th  of  June  and  was 
included  on  the  20th  or  30th  of  June.  Mr.  Browne  was  put  upon 
1  al  again  upon  the  same  indictment  on  the  2d  of  August,  and  it 
i  the  first  instance  probably  in  the  history  of  this  county  where  an 
i  portant  trial  was  begun  or  conducted  during  the  month  of  August, 

( r  practice  here  being  for  the  past  more  than  twenty-five  years  that 
te  courts  do  not  sit  for  jury  cases  from  the  third  Monday  of  July 
t  the  third  Monday  of  September — never  in  the  criminal  court 

<  ring  August.  Mr.  Browne  was  forced  to  trial  and  was  tried 
sain,  the  second  trial  commencing  on  August  2,  and  was  finished 


16  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

and  a  verdict  returned  on  the  9th  of  September,  a  verdict  of  nc 
guilty.  Upon  every  count  of  the  indictment  before  that  court  an 
jury  and  upon  every  count  of  the  indictment  that  is  incorporated  i 
the  charges  of  Mr.  Barnes  in  these  proceedings  Mr.  Browne  we 
acquitted.  Somebody,  through  great  energy  and  expenditure  c 
money  and  other  efforts,  procured  another  indictment  against  M 
Browne  before  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury,  that  being  tt 
capital  of  the  State,  Springfield.  The  indictment  here  contained, 
think,  13  or  14  counts,  covering  every  phase  of  the  case  that  eitht 
the  Tribune  or  its  private  counsel  or  the  State’s  attorney  could  coi 
ceive  of.  The  indictment  in  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury  we 
against  Mr.  Browne  and  another  member  of  the  legislature,  M 
Wilson,  and  the  charge  here  was  bribery,  and  that  implies  coi 
spiracy,  etc.  The  indictment  in  Sangamon  County  was  against  M 
Browne  and  Mr.  Wilson,  charging  a  conspiracy  to  bribe,  and  tt 
same  questions  that  were  involved  in  the  other  indictment  were  ah 
covered;  that  is,  the  same  general  questions,  including  the  electic 
of  a  United  States  Senator,  Senator  Lorimer.  The  indictment  again: 
Mr.  Browne  in  the  Sangamon  County  court  is  still  pending. 

They  also  procured  (and  when  I  say  “they”  I  do  not  mean  tl 
Tribune,  but  undoubtedly  under  the  statement  of  Mr.  Barnes  he) 
it  was  the  moving  factor)  an  indictment  against  Senator  Broderie 
a  Democratic  senator  from  Chicago,  charging  him  with  briber 
and,  as  I  understand  it — I  was  not  the  counsel  and  have  not  bee 
in  either  of  the  cases,  either  in  Springfield  or  here — the  State 
attorney  from  Springfield  came  up  here  and,  I  am  told,  follow* 
closely  the  indictment  already  procured  there  from  the  grand  jury  tl 
proceedings  here  against  Browne,  that  is,  in  the  Broderick  case. 

That  case  is  still  pending,  and  will  be  tried  some  time  next  mont 
The  specifications  on  a  motion  to  quash  were  filed  yesterday  or  tl 
day  before,  and  the  State’s  attorney  notified  the  parties  that  the  ma 
ter  would  be  set  down  for  hearing  on  a  motion  to  quash,  and  th: 
motion  to  quash  and  those  specifications  will  be  heard  next  Tuesda 
and  that  the  trial  would  follow  almost  immediately,  that  is,  it  wi 
follow  on  the  17th  of  the  month,  in  all  probability.  There  are  tv 
cases  down  there  growing  out  of  this  transaction,  the  one  again 
Lee  O’Neil  Browne  and  the  one  against  Senator  Broderick.  In  tl 
Broderick  case  the  attorneys  have  been  notified  that  the  case  wi 
be  set  down  early  in  October  and  will  be  tried  at  that  time  and  tl 
trial  will  be  pushed  right  along.  The  Browne  case  there  will  folio 
that.  Browne  and  Broderick,  as  you  gentlemen  can  very  readily  se 
will  be  very  important  witnesses  in  this  proceeding,  because  it 
charged  that  they  paid  the  money  to  Beckemeyer  and  Link  for  votii 
for  Senator  Lorimer.  Beckemeyer  and  Link  are  two  members  of  tl 
house,  Democratic  members,  and  friends  of  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  tl 
Democratic  leader;  that  is,  they  were  in  his  party.  They  testified 
the  trial  here  fully  on  every  phase  of  the  case  and  as  to  their  know 
edge  and  connection  with  it,  and  they  testified  that  he  got  a  thousai 
dollars,  but  that  it  was  not  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  He  said  he  hi 
no  agreement  whatever  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer;  no  arrangement 
vote  for  him;  he  said  he  voted  for  him  for  reasons  of  his  own- 
mean  Mr.  Broderick.  Link  testified  that  he  never  got  any  money 
vote  for  Lorimer. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  17 

Link  was  called  before  the  grand  jury  by  the  State’s  attorney  and 
estified  and  swore  before  the  grand  jury  that  he  never  received  any 
money  from  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  or  anybody  else  for  voting  for  Sen- 
tor  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator.  He  was  then  indicted  for 
perjury  immediately  upon  leaving  the  grand  jury  room  and  was  put 
a  charge  of  an  officer  without  any  warrant  whatever  from  anybody, 
nd  it  has  been  a  matter  of  controversy  since  between  the  foreman  of 
[pe  grand  jury  and  one  of  the  attorneys  from  the  State’s  attorney’s 
ffice  as  to  which  one  directed  that  he  be  put  in  the  custody  of  an 
fficer  of  the  State’s  attorney’s  office ;  but  he  was  put  in  custody  and 
ras  taken  away  in  custody  and  kept  there.  There  is  much  detail 
bout  that  that  I  am  not  going  to  tire  you  gentlemen  with,  but  he 
istified  he  was  told  by  the  officer  who  had  him  in  charge  that  if  he 
[fould  go  back  before  the  grand  jury  and  swear  that  he  did  get  a 
lousand  dollars  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  that  the  State’s  attor- 
ey  would  quash  the  indictment  against  him  for  perjurv.  He  testi- 
ed  in  open  court  to  all  of  this,  and  he  testified  that  he  told  the  State’s 
ttorney  that  he  did  not  get  any  money — not  only  the  time  before  the 
rand  jury,  but  he  told  him  that  also  in  his  private  office;  but  the 
tate’s  attorney  said  to  him,  “  Here  is  your  wife  and  your  home  on 
tie  side  and  there  is  the  penitentiary  on  the  other;  you  may  select 
hich  one  you  will  have.  If  you  will  go  before  the  grand  jury  and 
festify  that  you  got  a  thousand  dollars  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  you  may  go 
)  your  wife  and  home  and  I  will  quash  the  indictment.  If  you  don’t, 
will  prosecute  you  and  send  you  to  the  penitentiary.”  Mr.  Link 
lid,  “  TV  ell,  I  will  tell  a  lie  if  I  have  to,  but  I  don't  want  to.”  And 
3  was  then  taken  before  the  grand  jury  and  he  took  back  what  he  had 
lid  before  and  he  said  he  did  get  $1,000  for  voting  for  Senator 
orimer— no,  he  said  he  got  a  thousand  dollars.  He  was  brought  on 
le  witness  stand  at  the  trial  of  Browne  and  he  told  this  story.'  This 
not  a  matter  of  gossip  at  all,  it  is  a  matter  of  record  in  the  criminal 
)iirt  of  this  county.  He  told  the  story  there  as  I  have  narrated  it 
ire,  but  more  in  detail,  and  he  said  that  he  did  not  get  any  money 
>r  voting  for  Lorimer;  he  said  that  he  received  $1,000;  that  Senator 
orimer;  that  he  was  a  Democrat  and  Lorimer  was  a  Republican; 
lat  his  county — Madison  County — one  of  the  largest  counties  in  the 
!  ate,  in  southern  Illinois,  and  one  of  the  counties  abutting  upon  the 
lississippi  River;  he  said  that  he  had  heard  Senator  Lorimer  talk 
a  the  deep  waterway  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 

: id  that  he  and  his  people  wem  for  Senator  Lorimer,  and  Senator 
orimer  made  that  campaign  through  the  State,  not  as  a  Republican, 
It  he  addressed  Democratic  meetings  in  every  county  in  the  State  and 
own  through  the  Mississippi  Valley  to  New  Orleans.  He  said  his 
iople  were  in  favor  of  that  deep  waterway,  and  the  question,  then. 

1  at  was  before  the  people  and  what  interested  them  was  whether 
ley  would  vote  $20,000,000  for  the  building  of  a  deep  waterway  from 
te  Lakes  to  the  Gulf,  and  he  said  he  and  his  people  were  in  favor  of 
lat,  and  that  what  he  did  there  for  Senator  Lorimer  he  did  on  that 
: count,  and  only  on  that  account,  and  not  because  he  got  any  money 
om  Broderick,  Browne,  Lorimer,  or  anybody  else.  The  State’s 
dorney  said  to  him  on  cross-examination,  “You  testified,  Mr.  Link, 
Ifore  the  grand  jury  that  vou  did  get  $1,000  to  vote  for  Lorimer’ 
<dn’t  you?  ”  “  Yes.”  “  You  testify  here  that  you  got  $1,000  after 

70924°— S.  Kep.  942,  01-3 


2 


18  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

you  voted  for  Lorimer,  don’t  you?”  “  Yes.”  “Well,  you  did  get  a 
thousand  dollars,  didn’t  you?  ”  Mr.  Link  hesitated.  You  testified! 
when  the  grand  jury  was  in  session  a  few  days  ago  before  the  grand 
iury  that  you  did.”  Knowing  a  special  grand  jury  was  in  session  to 
again  indict  him  if  he  said  so,  he  said,  “  Yes.”  That  is  not  a  mere 

conjecture.  n  .  .  ,  » 

A  special  srand  jury  was  called  again  during  the  pendency  ot  the 
second  trial.^  Several  of  the  witnesses  who  testified  for  the  defense 
were  indicted  for  perjury  for  their  testimony  in  the  case,  although 
it  was  corroborated  by  officials  of  the  Central  Illinois  Railroad  and 
others.  Now,  that  was  the  kind  of  a  campaign  that  was  carried  on. 
Mr.  Beckemeyer  testified  that  he  got  a  thousand  dollars.  He  testified 
that  he  was  taken  before  the  state’s  attorney  and  he  told  the  state’s 
attorney  that  he  never  got  any  money  from  Browne  or  anybody  else 
for  voting  for  Lorimer.  He  said  he  was  a  Democrat.  He  said  he 
voted  for  Lorimer  because,  he  said,  the  Democratic  leaders  of  his 
senatorial  district  desired  it,  that  Senator  Lorimer,  because  of  this 
deep-waterway  campaign,  merited  it,  and  because  of  Senator  Lori- 1 
mer’s  advocacy  of  it  he  knew  the  benefits  that  would  accrue  to^  tht 
people  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  and  the  people  of  the  State  frorr 
Chicago  down  through  the  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois  River  down  t( 
the  Mississippi,  and  that  was  the  reason  he  voted  for  him.  The  polled 
officer  of  the  state’s  attorney’s  office  who  was  put  in  charge  of  Becke 
meyer  as  soon  as  Beckemeyer  was  excused  from  the  grand  jury  room 
testified— this  police  officer,  being  a  city  police  officer,  did  specia 
work  m  the  city  police  department,  but  wTas  assigned  to  duty  in  th< 
state’s  attorney’s  office— that  he  took  charge  of  Beckemeyer,  althougl 
he  had  not  then  been  indicted;  no  warrant  had  been  issued  agams 
him,  but  he  was  told  by  the  state’s  attorney  or  some  of  his  assistant 
to  take  him,  and  he  did  take  him  and  kept  him  m  custody.  lh< 
police  officer  was  called  by  Browne’s  counsel,  on  the  defense,  m  th 
trial  of  the  last  case  and  he  testified  that  he  was  given  charge  o 
Beckemeyer.  Beckemeyer  said  he  was  forced  to  tell  under  oath- 
think  all  of  the  police  officers  assigned  to  the  state’s  attorney’s  offic 
were  subpoenaed  by  the  defense  in  the  Browne  case.  He  testified- 
that  is.  the  police  officer  Keeley,  this  police  officer  referred  to— tha 
he  had  Beckemeyer;  that  he  was  told  to  take  Beckemeyer  out  and  gc 
him  drunk  after  he  left  the  grand  jury  room,  stating  there  unde 
oath  that  he  never  got  any  money-  for  voting  for  Lorimer.  He  sau 
he  did  take  him  out  and  he  got  him  drunk;  took  him  to  the  theater 
that  he  was  told  by  the  state’s  attorney’s  office  to  take  him  to  the  bes 
hotel  in  the  city  and  any  place  he  wanted  to  go;  that  he  did  take  hir 
out  and  that  he  did  get  him  drunk ;  that  he  took  him  to  the  theatei 
and  then  he  took  him  to  a  house  of  prostitution  out  on  Wabash  ave 
nue  and  the  police  officer  and  Beckemeyer  and  a  friend  of  Becke 
meyer’s  stayed  there  all  night  with  three  women.  The  details  c 
that  were  ruled  out  publicly  by  the  court  from  public  hearing,  bi 
that  was  the  statement  made  to  the  court  by  the  police  officer  and  b. 
the  others.  He  went  back  after  he  had  first  been  before  the  gram 
jurv  and  had  been  taken  out  by  the  police  officer  Keeley,  who  ws 

told  to  get  him  drunk.  He  was  taken  back - 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  you  will  pardon  the  suggestion:  Is  th 
committee  to  understand  that  the  purpose  of  your  statement  is  tf 
move  for  a  continuance  of  the  case? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  19 
Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  seems  to  the  committee  that  you  ought  to 
onfine  yourself  to  a  statement  of  the  reasons  for  a  continuance  simply 
nd  that  detailing  the  testimony  in  other  cases  does  not  bear  upon 

he  question  of  a  motion  for  continuance.  I  simply  make  that 
uggestion. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  feared,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that 
light  be  the  impression  that  the  committee  would  get,  but  the  im- 
ortance  of  it  is  to  show  the  contest  that  exists  here  and  the  bitterness 
t  it  and  the  exti  ernes  to  which  the  people  who  have  been  prosecuting 
lere,  and  who  Mr.  Barnes  says  are  prosecuting  here,  have  gone  to 
1  this  tiansaction,  and  there  are  two  of  the  cases  still  pending1  in 
ie  Sangamon  criminal  court. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee,  you  understand,  would  be  very 
lad  to  hear  anything  you  may  say  in  support  of  what  I  assume  to 
3  your  motion  for  a  continuance  of  the  case. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  not  pursue  that  further,  gentlemen,  although 
lere  is  very  much  more  detail  and  perhaps  it  has  gone  far  enough 
*  indicate  to  this  committee  what  the  character  of  the  proceeding 
.  Mr.  Browne  is  desired  by  Senator  Lorimer  as  a  witness  and  so 
Senator  Broderick.  They  have  been  advised,  I  am  told,  bv  their 
>unsel  that  they  may  not  testify  here  and  disclose  to  the  prosecu- 
on  at  Springfield  what  their  defense  may  be  of  matters  that  may  be 
>ed  by  the  prosecution.  They  insist,  or  counsel  for  Senator  Brode- 
]ck  and  Mr.  Browne  at  Springfield  insist,  that  it  was  shown  here 

was  paid  for  the  testimony  of  White,  the 
j-incipal  prosecuting  witness,  and  paid  by  the  Tribune;  and  I  have 
ere  a  photograph  of  the  contract  between  the  Tribune,  signed  by 

the  managing  editor  for  the  Tribune,  and  the  testimony 
Mr.  \\  lute  upon  the  stand,  where  he  produced  the  original  con- 
lact.  At  the  trial  it  was  shown  that  the  Tribune  paid  $3,500  to 
jocure  that  testimony  against  Browne  and  through  Browne  to  de¬ 
bit  Lorimer,  and  they  fear — no,  there  isn't  any  testimony  about  the 
roney  being  paid,  but  the  contract  was  entered  into  and  it  was  paid* 
te  last  payment  of  the  $1,000  was  not  to  be  paid  until  after  the 
st  trial,  but  White  testified  that  it  was  in  fact  paid  to  him  before 
I,  testified,  although  it  was  possibly  thirty  days,  it  would  not  be 
[le  ^der  the  terms  of  the  contract  until  probably  thirty  days  or 
sn umber  of  days  anyway,  after  the  trial.  He  testified  to  that. 

Now  they  say,  if  they  disclose  their  defense,  or  disclose  the  main 
ps-tacts  that  might  be  material  in  their  defense  here,  other  witnesses 
m  be  procured  for  a  less  sum  than  S3, 500  to  testify  against  them 
d  their  counsel  insists  that  they  shall  not  testify  here.  Now,  to 
2jmpel  those  men  to  testify  here,  you  gentlemen  can  very  readily  see 
iery  |awycr  can,  and  most  laymen  can,  how  detrimental  it  mhdit 
Ho  them  in  making  their  defense  down  at  Springfield  next  month ; 

*d  to  deprive  Senator  Lorimer  of  their  testimony  here  might  be 
Ip  detrimental  to  him  in  this  investigation,  and  lie  is  not  willing 
^go  on  unless  he  is  compelled  to  go  on  with  that  handicap  and  that 
^advantage.  Now,  that  is  not  all.  Fifty  of  the  men  who  voted 
tr  Senator  Lorimer,  about  50  of  the  men  (1  think  it  was  from  47  to 
),  not  less  than  47,  and  I  think  from  there  to  a  little  over  50,  who 
)  for  Senator  Lorimer)  have  been  nominated  at  the  primaries 
Id  past  for  the  election  that  will  take  place  on  the  8th  of  Novem- 


20  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

ber  Twenty-five  of  the  47  to  50  are  Democrats  and  the >  other 
are  Republicans.  Now,  these  same  charges  that  are  presented  here, 
that  were  presented  in  the  trial  of  the  criminal  court,  have  been 
presented  in  most  of  the  senatorial  districts  of  those  gentlemen  by 
the  same  men  who  are  presenting  them  here.  Mr.  Barnes  has  gone 
out  into  the  different  circuits  or  the  different  districts  and  has  made 
speeches  Mr.  Barnes  is  not  a  Democrat,  but  he  has  gone  intc 
Democratic  territory  and  denounced  these  men  on  account  of  the 
charges' that  are  here  made,  so  that  they  have  been  put  upon  tria 
repeatedly.  He  went  into  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  s  territory,  and  made 
speeches  denouncing  him  upon  the  charges 

the  same  that  were  made  m  the  criminal  court.  He  did  not  go  alone 
He  got  a  number  of  his  friends  to  go  down  m  that  district,  that  the] 
were  not  living  in,  and  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  ar>d 
those  speeches,  but  Mr.  Browne,  it  is  true,  was  nominated  by  th. 
bio'o’est ^popular  vote  that  he  ever  got  in  that  district,  and  they  wen 
into  Senator  Broderick’s  district  here  in  Chicago,  although  they  di< 
not  live  there,  and  they  made  the  same  attack  on  Senator  Brodencl 

11  They  went  into  the  senatorial  district  of  Speaker  Shurtleff,  wh 
was  the  speaker  of  the  last  house,  and  they  made  the  same  attack  a 
on  Senator  Broderick,  who  was  nominated  by  a  vote  of  more  tha 
3  to  1,  notwithstanding  their  attack  and  the  attack  of  the  Chicag 
Tribune,  and  Mr.  Barnes  says  he  knows  more  about  this  than  anj 
one  else’  They  went  into  all  of  the  other  senatorial  districts,  an 
notwithstanding  that.  47  to  50  or  more  who  were  attacked  m  th, 
way  about  half  Republicans  and  half  Democrats,  were  nomma  e 
bvihe  people  of  their  senatorial  districts.  If  that  was  all,  it  migl 
be  saidPto  stop  there,  that  would  end  there,  but  the  threat  is  mac 
publicly  through  the  columns  of  the  Tribune  and  its  associated  pape 
in  the  same  combination  that  the  attack  will  be  continued  on  tl 
same  lines  as  made,  viciously  if  necessary,  on  to  the  electioi 
November  and  that  these  men  will  be  defeated.  Now,  these  men, 
to  50  men  are  very  largely  interested  in  that  question,  and  if  we  cn 
Uiem  here,  you  gentlemen  can  very  readily  see  how  embarrass., 
it  mav  be  to  them,  and  how,  what  they  may  testify  to  lieie  mi 
)lp  ..(.finst  them  in  their  senatorial  districts  at  the  election  on  t 
8th  ff  NovemTer  and  they  say  they  won’t  come  unless  hey  ha 
to  they  say  pointedly  they  will  not  come;  of  course,  they  do  n 
know  some  of  them,  that  they  can  be  compelled  to  come.  But  it 
not  fair  to  them  I  submit,  to  compel  them  to  be  taken  away  frc 
their  senatorial  districts  with  that  kind  of  a  fight  pending  and  eo.' 
pel  them  to  co„,e  here  and  furnish  facts  that  may  be  used  agan 
them  in  their  own  districts  and  to  their  detriment  and  defeat. 

Now  the  essence  of  all  that  is,  it  is  not  the  fact  of  fighting  St 
utor  Lorimer  alone,  it  is  not  because  of  the  opposition  or  thee  en< 
foward  him.  but  in  its  operation  it  will  not  only  apply  to  Sena 
Lorimer  but  to  ail  of  the  men  who  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer.  Tl 
is  the  charge  that  is  being  made  now  without  sayinB  so,  the 
facts  are  that  they  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer  because  of  his  a 
vocacv  and  grand  work  in  the  appropriation  involving  the  expen 
ture  of  $20  000.000.  Here  they  had  to  act  by  a  constitutional  amei 
ment  Now  they  say  that  the  two  sides,  the  Tribune  and  the  g 
ernor,  are  contending  that  $20,000,000  for  a  power  plant  and  not 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  21 

deep  waterway,  and  that  was  before  the  last  legislature,  and  it  was 
efeated  by  Senator  Lorimer  and  his  friends  leading  that  fight  to 
eep  pledges  they  had  made  to  the  people.  Now  that  'same  ques- 
on  is  presented  to  these  different  constituencies,  and  it  is  at- 
unpted  to  defeat  both  the  Republican  and  Democratic  nominees— 
lose  who  at  the  last  session  of  the  legislature  voted  against  the 
jspenditure  of  $20,000,000  by  the  governor  of  the  State  for  a 
ower  plant  when  a  pledge  was  made  to  the  people  that  it  would 
3  expended  only  for  a  deep  waterway.  Now  they  are  confronted 
ith  these  two  questions,  and  upon  which  they  are  being  attacked 
3cause  they  voted  against  the  expenditure  of  that  money,  and  it  is 
a  attempt  to  obtain  a  majority  of  the  legislature  by  the  governor 
£  the  State  and  the  Chicago  Tribune,  led  by  its  able  editor,  Mr. 
'eeley,  in  getting  that  $20,000,000  for’ the  governor  to  spend  during 
is  administration,  and  before  the  expiration  of  it.  Now  they 
re  confronted  with  those  questions,  and  it  is  a  very  serious  question 

>  Senator  Lorimer  and  his  side  in  this  case,  that  he  can  not  get 
lose  witnesses  here,  or  that  he  can  only  get  them  by  the  enforcing 
f  the  power  than  can  be 'exercised  by  this  committee  to  compel  them 

>  come  in  here  and  submit  to  what  may  be  mere  gossip,  but  gossip 
;rious  enough  to  seriously  affect,  and  possibly  defeat,  many  of  them 
t  the  coming  election.  Nowt,  there  is  the  condition  that  wTe  are 
mfronted  with.  Those  candidates  for  the  legislature  say  they 
ill  not  come  here;  they  will  not  come.  We  know  only  what  they 
ate  about  it.  We  know  that  Senator  Broderick  and  Mr.  Browne 
ill  not  come  unless  they  are  compelled  to  come,  and  we  do  not  like 
)  be  put  under  that  handicap. 

This  question  has  already  been  tried,  of  course.  The  judgment 
f  the  criminal  court  here  exonerated  Mr.  Browne,  and  finding  that 
Ir.  White,  the  prosecuting  witness,  who  was  paid  $3,500  for  his 
>stimony,  and  Mr.  Beckemeyer  and  Mr.  Link;  what  they  say  does 
ot  bind  this  committee,  it  is  true,  but  it  is  the  judgment  of  the 
aurt,  so  far  as  the  charge  that  White  was  bribed  by  Browne  to  vote 
)T  Lorimer,  that  would  be  in  every  jurisdiction  in  the  world,  as  I 
nderstand  it,  res  adjudicata  here,  and  in  every  other  tribunal  hav- 
lg  jurisdiction  to  try  the  case.  Now,  there  are  other  questions 
uxiliary  to  that,  surrounding  that,  that  may  have  other  details,  all 
f  which  may  not  come  out  before  this  committee  or  the  general 
ublic,  and  which  we  do  not  think  ought  to  come  out  to  the  detri¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Lorimer  for  political  reasons,  or  the  different  men, 
hese  25  Republicans  and  25  Democrats,  who  are  candidates  at  the 
lection  in  November,  for  purely  political  reasons  and  not  for  the 
easons  for  which  this  committee  was  appointed  to  make  this  in- 
estigation.  This  committee  was  appointed  to  try  the  issue,  and 
here  can  be  no  desire  to  do  other  than  to  investigate  the  question 
whether  an  unworthy  person  has  unworthily  obtained  his  office  and 
seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  and  still  retains  it.  These 
barges  were  not  made  until  considerably  more  than  a  year  after  he 
ook  his  seat,  and  then  they  originated  in  the  payment  of  $3,500  to 
Vhite,  and  then  the  bludgeon  of  the  grand  jury  and  the  state  at- 
orney’s  office  compelling  two  others  to  testify  to  what  was  taken  to 
>e  corroborative  testimony. 

No  good  purpose  can  be  accomplished  so  far  as  the  purposes  of 
his  committee  are  concerned,  or  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  or 


22  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


good  morals,  or  good  government,  by  forcing  a  hearing  of  this  pro¬ 
ceeding  at  the  present  time,  because  the  Senate  will  not  sit  regularly 
until  the  first  Monday  of  December.  The  Browne  and  the  Broderick 
case  will  be  tried  before  that  time  undoubtedly,  and  the  conclusions 
that  are  now  pending  in  which  all  of  these  men  are  vitally  interested 
in  their  different  senatorial  districts  will  be  over  on  the  8th  day  ol 
November,  and  there  is  ample  time  between  the  close  of  election  in 
November  and  the  closing  of  the  trials  of  Browne  and  Broderick 
to  investigate  this  whole  matter  and  be  ready  even  on  the  first  day 
of  the  session  of  the  Senate  to  present  the  report  of  this  committee. 
In  that  way  fairness  will  be  shown  to  all  of  the  sides  and  interests  m- 
volved  here,  and  unfairness  will  not  be  meted  out  to  one  side  to  the  very 
oreat  detriment  of  the  other.  And  I  submit  that  for  another  reason, 
because  of  the  truth  that  must  come  out  on  the  floor  here  and  of  al 
the  truth  that  must  come  out  from  the  witnesses,  that  they  ought  not 
to  be  hampered  or  coerced  because  of  the  conditions  that  surround 
them  at  the  present  time.  And  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gen¬ 
tlemen,  that  this  ought  to  have  very  serious  consideration  here,  ant, 
that  this  matter  should  be  postponed  until  all  those  matters  are  dis¬ 
posed  of  in  the  criminal  court  of  Sangamon  County  and  the  election 
in  November.  Otherwise  the  effect  of  the  investigation  here,  what¬ 
ever  the  conclusion  may  be,  will  be  purely  political  and  will  be  used 
as  a  political  club  to  defeat  the  candidates  of  both  parties— candi¬ 
dates  of  both  parties  for  the  legislature— and  do  a  very  great  mjustici 
to  Senator  Lorimer.  And  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen 
that  that  should  not  be  done  when  there  is  no  purpose  involved  excepi 
to  <nve  to  the  Chicago  Tribune  or  other  enterprising  newspapers  ai 
opportunity  to  exploit  the  gossips  that  may  come  out  in  the  healing 


here. 


Mr.  Barnes.  May  I  say  just  a  word? 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly.  .  _  _  .  ,,  ,  , 

Mr.  Barnes.  I  am  very  much  surprised  at  the  plea  that  has  jus 

been  made  to  this  committee  to  delay  action,  and  I  am  surprised  a 
the  ground  stated  in  that  appeal  to  the  committee.  Mr.  Chaiimaii 
vou  have  it  within  your  power  and  you,  gentlemen,  to  do  somethin' 
more  than  help  defeat  unworthy  legislators,  who  are  now  seeking 
office  at  Springfield.  You  have  in  within  your  power  and  I  believ 
it  is  your  purpose  and  within  your  power  to  remove  from  the  Unite* 
States  a  stain  that  we  of  Illinois  have  made  upon  it  and  a  stain  mad 
upon  our  own  State.  And  we  who  are  disinterested,  sir,  I  may  c  ainc 
who  belong  to  a  nonpolitical  organization,  are  very,  very  ^ager 
have  this  investigation  proceed.  We  have,  to  be  sure  been  out  m  tin 
State  trying  to  defeat  such  men  as  Mr.  O^seill  Browne  and  Mi 
Shurtleff  and  Mr.  Broderick  and  others  who  represent  those  partie 
and  who  stand  for  dishonesty,  who  stand  for  the  lowest  kind  of  coi 
rupting  politics.  We  have  evidence  to  prove  that,  sir,  evidence  tha 
you  could  not  deny,  and  you  ought,  it  seems  to  me  to  proceed  wit 
and  press  this  investigation.  I  have  been  criticised  for  having  use 
the  ao-ency  of  the  Tribune  in  presenting  this  claim  to  your  honorabl 
body  of  the  Senate.  Let  me  very  briefly  explain  how  this  came  abou 
There  are  several  of  us  who  had  understood  the  situation  at  Spring 
field,  knew  by  evidence  that  was  hardly  sufficient  to  be  brought  into 
court  and  to  have  condemned  the  defendants,  knew  bv  evidence  thj 
corruption  of  the  most  gross  character  had  been  taking  place  i 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  23 

Springfield  during  the  last  session,  largely  brought  about  by  a  par- 
isan  combine,  a  combine  that  afterwards  came  to  be  the  agent  of 
Senator  Lorimer  in  bis  election.  The  Legislative  Voters’  League 
ndeavored  through  political  agencies  to  obtain  definite  proof  of  the 
orruption  that  was  going  on,  but  it  could  not  find,  as  it  seemed  to 
s  who  were  in  the  position  of  executive  officers,  could  not  find  suffi- 
ient  evidence  to  go  into  court.  We  were  all  ashamed  of  it  and  all 
elt  it  and  the  need  of  remedying  it,  and  in  fact,  we  would  have  given 
nything  at  the  expense  of  a  large  fortune  if  we  could  have  uncovered 
ie  corruption  that  it  was  perfectly  evident  was  going  on  at  Spring- 
eld.  When  the  Tribune  found,  through  Charles  White’s  story,  some 
vidence  that  made  it  possible  to  open  the  grand  jury  action,  we  were 
verjoyed  and  we  expected  that  the  honorable  Senate  would  immedi- 
tely  take  action  bringing  about  an  investigation.  And  when*  the 
5  reeks  went  by  and  no  action  was  taken,  I  was  called  up  in  the  latter 
art  of  May  by  a  representative  of  the  Examiner,  I  believe  it  was, 
rho  asked  me  if  the  Voters’  League  would  not  do  something  to  bring 
lis  matter  before  your  honorable  body.  I  said  I  did  not  feel  that 
le  league  was  qualified  to  do  it,  but  I  would  take  the  matter  under 
msideration,  and  we  talked  the  matter  over  and  could  not  see  our 
ray  clear;  and  one  day  while  I  was  attending  a  meeting  of  the  com- 
lission  of  commerce  at  the  Union  League  Club,  Mr.  Keeley  called  me 

p  and  asked  if  there  was  any  possibility  of  our  doing  this  thing - 

Judge  LIanecy.  That  is  the  managing  editor  of  the  Tribune? 

Mr.  Barnes.  That  is  the  managing  editor  of  the  Tribune.  I  told 
im  as  I  had  told  the  reporter — that  is,  I  supposed  he  was — of  the 
Examiner,  that  I  didn’t  see  how  we  could  do  anything  about  it;  he 
lid,  “  I  think  we  can  help  you.”  I  said,  “  I  would  be  delighted  to 
ave  you.”  I  went  over  to  Mr.  Keeley’s  office,  and  we  talked  the 
latter  over;  and  after  a  consultation,  Mr.  Keeley  had  prepared  the 
latter  that  was  afterwards  laid  before  your  honorable  body  and 
gned  by  myself. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  of  Illinois,  who  are  interested  in  the  welfare 
f  our  State  rather  than  any  political  party,  are  perfectly  confident 
lat  we  have  corroborative  evidence  in  abundance  to  testify  and  show 
ud  prove  that  there  never  has  been  a  state  of  political  corruption  to 
'cceed  that  which  was  in  evidence  at  Springfield  at  the  last  session. 
iy  your  immediate  action,  sir,  you  could  help  those  of  us  who  are 
isinterested ;  you  could  help  us  purge  out  of  the  State  a  lot  of  rascals 
ho  ought  to  be  removed  by  force.  It  is  a  fact  that  your  action 
ow  would  help  immensely  in  clearing  out  of  this  campaign  a  lot 
f  men  who  ought  to  be  cleared  out.  You  have  it  in  your  power  to 
ring  evidence  which  the  court  here  in  Cook  County  could  not  con- 
der,  and  I  have  no  doubt  at  all,  as  the  Hon.  Judge  Hanecy  has  re- 
uirked,  that  should  you  see  fit  to  call  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  and  Mr. 
Roderick  and  Mr.  Shurtleff  and  others  here,  the  testimony  they 
ould  give  would  be  so  damaging  that  they  would  doubtless  be 
efeated  at  the  coming  election. 

I  wish,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  you  might  hear  from  the  representa- 
ve  of  the  Tribune,  Mr.  Austrian,  who  is  now  acting  as  temporary 

nmsel. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  just  reply  to  one  thing  in  verification  of 
hat  I  said  when  I  was  on  my  feet  before?  Mr.  Barnes  has  thor- 
ughly  confirmed  that  the  purposes  of  this  investigation  and  what 


24  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

is  adduced  here  will  be  used  by  them  for  the  purpose  of  defeating 
these  men  who  are  candidates  for  the  legislature  and  who  voted  j 
against  the  expenditure  of  $20,000,000  for  a  water-power  plant  in¬ 
stead  of  a  waterway.  I  could  not  have  a  clearer  admission  if  I  had 
cross-examined  the  gentleman  myself. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  the  committee  would  like  to  have  you 
put  in  writing  your  application  for  a  continuance,  stating  the  grounds 
for  such  continuance  distinctly  and  clearly,  and  in  such  form  as  you, 
yourself,  as  an  eminent  jurist  and  lawyer,  would  listen  to  and  con¬ 
sider.  There  has  been  very'  much  said  outside  of  the  point  of  the 
continuance,  and  we  would  be  glad  to  have  you  make  a  motion  in 
writing,  in  the  usual  form,  as  an  application  for  continuance,  stat¬ 
ing  succinctly  the  grounds  upon  which  you  ask  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  would  be  very  glad  to  do  so,  Mr.  Chairman. 
May  I  ask  within  what  time? 

Senator  Burrows.  You  can  have  it  ready  by  to-morrow,  I  pre-  j 
sume,  Judge. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  do  it  just  as  speedily  as  possible. 

Mr.  Barnes.  Would  you  hear  from  Mr.  Austrian,  representing  the 
Tribune  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  Upon  this  motion  for  a  continuance? 

Mr.  Barnes.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  we  will. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen;  before  you  have 
heard  me  upon  the  question  for  a  continuance,  I  think  the  first  thing 
that  ought  to  be  heard  is  whether  you  will  permit  the  Tribune  to 
appear,  not  in  the  light  of  a  prosecutor,  but  to  aid  or  rather  present 
in  such  succinct  form  as  the  committee  may  deem  advisable  the  wit¬ 
nesses — the  oral  and  documentary  evidence  which  they  have  leading 
to  an  investigation  of  this  charge.  And  I  desire  to  address  myself, 
if  permitted  so  to  do,  upon  two  propositions:  First,  shall  the  Tribune 
be  heard,  as  such,  through  its  counsel ;  and  secondly,  if  you  conclude 
to  hear  the  Tribune,  whether  or  not  a  speedy  hearing  should  be  had, 
or  this  matter  postponed  indefinitely.  Of  course  you  are  all  familiar 
with  the  record  under  which  you  are  acting.  Senator  Lorimer’s 
speech  of  May  28,  the  filing  of  the  Legislative  Voters  League  of 
charges  on  June  7,  the  resolution  referring  this  charge  or  these 
charges  to  this  committee  to  audit,  and  subsequently,  on  June  20, 
the  resolution  directing  this  committee  or  this  subcommittee  to  in¬ 
vestigate  the  charges  whether  or  not  corruption  or  corrupt  methods 
or  practices — bribery  is  not  stated  in  the  resolution — were  indulged 
in  in  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer  to  the  United  States  Senate. 

When  that  resolution  was  introduced  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate 
Chamber  you  undoubtedly  remember  that  Senator  Borah  asked  leave 
to  amend  by  inserting  the  word  “  immediately;”  and  if  there  is  any 
question  about  that  I  have  it  here  before  me,  and  the  chairman  of 
this  subcommittee  rose  in  the  Senate  Chamber  and  said:  “  Don’t  you 
think,  Senator,  that  that  is  a  little  reflection?  ”  And  the  suggestion 
or  the  proposed  amendment  was  withdrawn,  and  thereupon  the  chair¬ 
man  of  this  subcommittee  stated  with  all  due  dispatch  you  would 
cause  an  investigation  to  be  made  on  these  charges.  It  is  unnecessary 
for  me  to  read  the  minutes  of  that  meeting  of  June  20.  You  an¬ 
nounced  many  weeks  ago  that  on  June  20  you  would  sit  in  Chicago; 
and  receive  such  evidence  as  might  be  adduced  and  produced  here  for 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  25 

your  consideration.  ^  After  some  days  you  called  this  meeting  to  order 
and  we  appear.  You,  I  believe,  came  here  on  September  19,  Mr. 
Chairman,  and  some  of  the  other  members  of  the  subcommittee.  We, 
m  September  19,  and  by  “  we,”  I  mean  the  client  I  represent,  and  who, 
casting  aside  all  the  chaff  that  has  been  said  here  upon  the  merits  or 
the  demerits  of  this  controversy  is  the  only  party  interested,  as  every¬ 
one  concedes,  were  handed  a  list  of  some  twenty-five  witnesses,  and 
igain  on  September  20  again  were  handed  a  list  of  something  like 
thirteen  or  fourteen  witnesses  who  we  were  ready  to  produce^ with 
four  assistance  and  by  the  issuance  of  a  subpoena.  I  speak  of  that, 
Mr.  Chairman,  because  in  the  face  of  the  charge  of  Senator  Lorimer, 
nade  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  on  May  28,  1910,  that  he  wanted  an 
mmediate  investigation  of  the  charges  and  that  the  client  whom  I 
^present,  the  Chicago  Tribune,  would  not  dare  to  step  out  in  the 
)pen  and  make  the  charges  or  present  the  evidence.  We  are  now  here, 
Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  here  and  have  furnished  you  some  evidence 
with  the  list  of  witnesses,  and  we  say  to  you  that  the  state  of  the 
•ecord  is  not  as  Judge  Hanecy  would  have  you  believe.  We  say  to 
mu  that  the  acquittal  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  is  not,  as  has  been  sug¬ 
gested,  res  adjudicata,  or  even  a  decision  of  persuasive  authority, 
hat  will  even  be  considered  by  this  subcommittee.  Suppose  Mr. 
3rowne  had  been  convicted  and  we  had  offered  to  introduce  the  order 
>f  his  conviction  before  you,  would  you  have  given  it  much  time  or 
:onsideration  that  that  order  of  conviction  was  binding,  or  even 
ended  to  prove  the  charge  made  under  this  investigation?  No  two 
ules  of  law  are  better  settled  and  established  than  these,  first,  that 
mu  must  either  connect  the  sitting  Senator  with  the  direct  charge  of 
>ribery  himself,  or  second,  that  you  must  say  that  so  many  votes  have 
>een  swung  to  the  Senator-elect  as  to,  by  corrupt  methods  and  prac- 
ices  of  bribery,  as  to  take  from  him  that  majority  which  he  had. 

In  considering  the  evidence  as  to  either  one  of  those  two  proposi- 
ions,  the  law  bearing  upon  either  one  of  those,  and  I  offered  in  evi¬ 
dence  an  indictment  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  that  on  June  16  in  the 
ity  of  Chicago  he  paid  one  Charles  E.  White,  then  a  sitting  member 
f  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  of  Illinois,  a  sum  of  money,  would 
lie  gentleman  say  that  that  tended  to  prove  any  issue  in  this  case? 
so.  Now  then,  we  have  an  acquittal  and  Judge  Hanecy  says  that  in 
very  court  in  Christendom  that  would  be  considered  as  persuasive 
es  adjudicata,  as  persuasive  authority.  I  say  to  you,  gentlemen  of 
iiis  subcommittee,  that  the  gentleman  knows  and  you  know  that  in 
he  criminal  court  of  Cook  County,  and  in  the  criminal  court  of  any 
ther  county  and  every  county  in  the  United  States,  that  you  must 
'rove  a  crime  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  and  that  proof  of  guilt 
eyond  a  reasonable  doubt  is  proof  of  guilt  to  a  reasonable  and  moral 
ertainty.  Now,  I  will  ask  you  to  answer  this  question — look  at  the 
Yyne  case,  look  at  the  Clarke  case,  look  at  the  Clayton  Powell  case, 
nd  look  at  any  of  the  cases  that  you  gentlemen  in  your  long  expe- 
ience  in  the  United  States  Senate  have  had  occasion  to  review  and  sit 
pon,  and  show  me  one  sentence  where  you  have,  or  where  any  of  your 
redecessors  in  office  have,  held  that  you  must  prove  corruption  or 
orrupt  methods  or  practices  in  the  election  of  a  United  States  Sen- 
tor  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  as  to  each  and  every  element  of  the 
orrupt  methods  and  practices  indulged  in.  And  again,  Officer 
v^eeley,  referred  to  by  Judge  Hanecy,  may  have  been  drunk;  I  don’t 


26  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

care  whether  he  was  or  not ;  he  may  have  indulged  in  practices  that 
the  learned  counsel  says  he  indulged  in.  "YY  e  are  not  relying  on 
Officer  Keeley.  We  have  given  you  the  names  of  men  who  were 
members  of  the  legislative  bodies  of  Illinois  in  the  forty -sixth  general 
assembly  without  number.  We  say  to  you,  if  this  is  political  conspi¬ 
racy,  as  Judge  Hanecy  says,  you  can  readily  dispose  of  it  between 
now  and  the  elections.  We  say  to  you  further  that  if  there  is  not 
anythin0'  in  our  position  the  sooner  it  is  exposed  the  bettei  foi  all 
concerned.  We  say  that  if  we  engaged  in  or  indulged  in  a  conspi¬ 
racy  with  Governor  Deneen,  or  the  Legislative  Voters  League,  or 
anvone  else,  you  can  expose  it  promptly  and  immediately.  . 

We  bought  this  testimony  for  $3,500,  did  we?  and  if  you  bring 
Senator  Broderick  here  to  testify  and  he  discloses  what  his  defense 
is  we  can  buy  some  more  cheaper  later  on.  Counsel  did  not  tell  you 
that  the  facts  disclosed  in  this  case  showed  that  we  didn’t  buy  any 
testimony  at  all.  That  this  very  story,  this  confession  of  this  man 
Charles  E.  White  many  months  before  we  ever  heard  of  him,  was 
offered  to  Everybody’s  Magazine  and  the  McClure  Publishing  Com- 
pany  and  many  others,  and  along  in  May  was' the  first  we  ever  heard 
of  him  and  later  on  somebody  told  us  Senator  Lorimer  must  have 
been  telling  him  about  it,  asking  him  if  he  wanted  to  buy  it,  I  am 
not  here  in  defense  of  White.  You  will  see  White;  you  will  see 
Broderick;  you  will  see  Browne;  you  will  see  them  all,  and  having 
heard  the  testimony  of  all  it  is  for  you  to  determine  upon  which  side 
the  truth  lies.  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  subcommittee,  if  this  is  ail 
idle  chaff,  if  this  is  political  guff  and  no  more,  if  this  is  not  an  at¬ 
tempt  and  an  honest  endeavor  on  the  part  of  my  client  to  have  you 
know  the  facts,  why,  then,  we  are  wrong  and  you  only  want  to  know 
the  facts.  Judge  Hanecy  says  that  we  are  the  instigating  motive 
power.  We  are.  and  that  is  why  we  are  here.  Why,  the  very  state¬ 
ment  of  Judo-e  Hanecy,  the  intricacies  of  his  statement,  and  the  in¬ 
volved  methods  that  he  pursued  to  enlighten  you  gentlemen  upon 
the  details  of  the  two  trials  of  Lee  Brown,  where  the  only  otlense 
for  which  and  upon  which  he  could  have  been  tried  was  whether  or 
not  in  the  county  of  Cook,  not  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  not  in  the 
State  of 'Missouri,  but  whether  or  not  only  m  the  county  of  Cook  he 
tried  to  bribe  one  Charles  E.  White.  Why,  the  evidence  m  that  very 
case  showed— it  was  not  competent  as  material  substantive  evidence— 
the  evidence  in  that  case  showed  that  the  act  complained  of  took  place 
not  alone  in  Cook  County,  took  place  in  Springfield,  m  Sangamon 
County,  and  in  St.  Louis.  Why,  if  I  could  go  into  detail,  and  go  on 
to  detail— for  the  same  purpose  and  following  along  the  line  fol¬ 
lowed  bv  Judge  Hanecy— as  to  what  the  evidence  m  that  case  showed, 
why.  if  I  should  go  on  and  detail  the  facts  we  intend  to  establish 

before  you,  you  would  be  somewhat  surprised. 

For  instance,  if  I  should  say  to  you  now  that  we  will  prove  to  yon 
the  sudden  affluence  and  wealth  after  a  certain  conference  with  this 
same  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  of  many  members  of  the  legislature,  and 
suppose  I  should  say  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  sub¬ 
committee,  that  after  this  exposure  the  senators  and  members  of  tin 
house  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  were  chasing  each  othei 
like  hares  all  over  this  State,  meeting  at  dark  places,  out  of  the  waj 
places,  and  framing  defenses  and  alibis  with  reference  to  the  pa37men 
of  corrupt  money.  Suppose  I  said  that  besides  the  men  he  men*. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMEE.  27 

tinned.  Link  and  Beckemeyer,  from  the  clay  that  Senator  Lorimer 
made  that  speech  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  Chamber  on  May  28, 
1910,  without  the  influence  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  unbeknown  to 
0  c  ^  o  T  n  b  u  n  e ,  one  of  the  most  theretofore  respected  members 
of  the  senate  of  this  State,  Senator  Holden,  confessed  that  he  had 
been  paid  $2,500  to  vote  for  Lorimer.  Suppose  I  should  go  on  and 
bare  and  disclose  without  number  the  men  we  can  enmesh  in  the 
toils  of  bribery.  Suppose  I  stated  to  you  that  these  men  will  go  on 
the  stand  and  testify  to  these  things,  one  to  the  effect  that  $900  was 
paid  in  a  bath  room,  as  a  part  of  this  controversy,  suppose  I  was  to 
rehearse  all  that,  to  what  purpose  would  it  be?  Referring  again  to 
what  Judge  Hanecv  said  to  you  a  short  time  ago,  we  are  the  motive 
cause— we  printed  this  story  on  the  30th  of  April  and  on  the  28th 
of  May  for  the  first  time,  the  Senator  from  Illinois  spoke  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate.  No  action  was  taken.  On  the  1st  day  of  June  this 
resolution  was  written  by  Mr.  Keeley.  No  action  taken.  At  the 
behest  of  the  Chicago  Tribune  the  Legislative  Voters  League  filed  be¬ 
fore  you  -and  presented  a  Avritten  memorial  which  appears  on  record, 
then  for  the  first  time  was  this  resolution  on  the  20th  of  June  passed’ 

Now,  I  say  that  we  have  the  names  of  and  we  have  the  witnesses, 
we  have  the  documentary  proof  and  the  evidence  and  we,  the  Chi¬ 
cago  Tribune,  are  thoroughly  responsible,  no  one  will  gainsay  that 
for  a  moment,  we  ask  in  all  fairness,  not  as  prosecutors,  but  simply 
to  aid,  assist,  and  help  you  in  this  matter  as  much  as  possible.  We 
want  no  more  part  in  this  investigation  than  a^ou  think  we  oimht 
to  have. 

Noav,  with  reference  to  a  continuance,  you  are  not  going  to  stay 
here  ad  infinitum:  you  are  going  to  be  here  for  perhaps  a  Aveek  or 
two  or  three.  We  will  produce  testimony,  if  you  will  permit  us  to 
assist  you,  the  honorable  subcommittee,  to  keep  you  busy  for  at  least 
a  few  weeks;  and  suppose  Senator  Broderick  and  Senator  Browne 
are  put  upon  trial  at  Springfield,  and  suppose  a  conviction  should 
be  had,  and  then  a  Avrit  of  error  sued  out  to  the  supreme  court  of 
this  State,  and  then  counsel  representing  Broderick  and  Browne 
say,  u  No;  we  won't  permit  our  clients  to  testify.”  “  Why?  ”  “  Why, 
there  is  a  writ  of  error  pending  in  the  case,  and  if  the  case  is  reversed, 
why,  then,  of  course,  we  wilt  have  to  have  another  trial,  and  then 
we  might  want  them  to  testify.”  I  never  heard — being  a  man  of 
not  great  experience,  such  as  Judge  Hanecv — I  never  heard  such  an 
argument  advanced.  When  those  witnesses  come  here  and  say  they 
ire  not  going  to  testify,  under  the  advice  of  counsel,  there  mav  be 
some  act  pursuant  to  the  statutes  of  the  United  States  in  that  ‘case 
provided.  And  then  if  an  adjournment  be  necessary  to  permit,  in 
your  discretion,  some  other  AAutnesses  to  testify,  that  may  be  done 
igain.  We  say  to  you,  that  if  you  will  but  issue  the  subpoenas,  and  if 
you  will  direct  that  they  may  be  served  or  permit  us  to  have  agents 
-erve  them  or  by  whoever  you  may  designate,  Ave  will  have  this5 evi¬ 
dence  and  sufficient  of  it,  irrespective  of  the  gentlemen  named  by 
Judge  Hanecv,  to  keep  the  committee  busy  for  some  time  to  come. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  it  is  not  the 
lesire  of  Senator  Lorimer  or  any  of  his  friends  to  limit  the  investi¬ 
gation  here  or  to  exclude  any  testimony  that  this  committee  may 
lesire  to  hear,  and  we  will  aid  this  committee  and  have  any  witness 
lere  that  the  committee  Avill  suggest  or  that  the  committee  desires 


28  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

to  hear  from.  We  do  think,  however,  it  would  be  unfair  to  use  this 
investigation  as  a  political  club  to  defeat  the  men  who  can  not  be 
here  at  the  elections  that  will  be  concluded  on  the  8th  day  of  Novem¬ 
ber.  We  do  suggest  that  gossip  should  not  be  published  through 
this  committee,  "  it  should  not  be  the  means  of  conveying  mere  gossip 
to  the  public,  as  suggested  by  Brother  Austrian,  through  the  papers 
that  he  with  somebody  else  own  and  control  under  the  title  of  "  we; 
but  that  only  such  testimony  and  such  facts  as  tend  to  show  things 
that  this  committee  should  investigate  should  be  gone  into,  and  theie 
can  be  no  conclusion  until  after  the  Senate  meets  in  December:  so 
that  the  only  purpose  that  could  be  accomplished  by  making  this 
conduit  of  gossip  through  the  committee,  to  the  Tribune  for  pub¬ 
lication,  would  be  to  affect  the  men  who  are  running  for  the  legis¬ 
lature  and  who  can  not  be  here  to  be  heard  m  reply.  And  I  submit 
that  no  interest  can  be  seriously  affected,  but  justice  and  fair  dealing 
can  be  accomplished  by  postponing  this  until  tho^  two  cases  are 
disposed  of  and  the  November  elections  are  over.  There  is  not  any 
doubt  about  the  disposition  about  those  cases  m  Springfield  before 
this  committee  will  want  those  gentlemen  after  the  election  in 

Senator  Burrows.  I  gather  from  your  remarks  [referring  to  Mr. 
Austrian]  in  opposition  to  this  motion  for  a  continuance  that  the 
Tribune  desires  to  be  represented  by  attorneys. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  In  this  case,  Judge,  can  you  have  your  applica¬ 
tion  in  writing  on  the  motion  for  continuance  ready  by  to-morrow 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  know,  Mr.  Chairman.  We  ordered  what 
I  said  here  written  up,  so  I  can  use  it  m  preparing  more  briefly  what 
your  committee  desires.  I  do  not  know  just  when  I  wall  get  that. 
Probably  some  time  during  the  day. 

Senator  Burrows.  To-day  ?  , 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  I  will  get  that  ;  then  I  will  prepare  the  other 
just  as  speedily  as  possible;  but  I  will  have  to  dictate  that  m  all 
probability  and  then  wait  for  the  stenographer  to  write  it  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  is  the  desire  of  the  committee  that  you  state 
the  grounds  of  your  motion  for  the  continuance,  eliminating  those 

things  that  do  not  bear  on  that  question.  .  ,  ■»  i»,r 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  was  what  I  wanted  this  written  out  for,  Mr. 

Mr.  Barnes.  May  I  have  an  affidavit,  or  present  an  argument  in 
opposition  to  any  continuance 

Senator  Burrows.  Oh,  certainly. 

With  that  understanding,  then,  the  committee  will  adjourn  until 

to-morrow  morning  at  10  o’clock.  ,  „  ,. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  ask  one  question  before  you  adjourn,  if  you 
please?  If  the  committee  conclude  that  the  Chicago  Tribune  has 
the  right  of  representation,  of  course  I  would  like  to  appear  heie 
and  see  Judge  Hanecy’s  affidavit,  and  make  a  reply  to  it 

Senator  Burrows.  We  will  determine  that  question  m  the  morning. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  would  like  an  opportunity  of  replying  to  Judge 
Hanecy’s  affidavit  if  we  can  have  that  opportunity. 

Senator  Johnston.  As  I  understand  it,  this  affidavit  will  state  sub¬ 
stantially  what  Judge  Hanecy  stated  in  his  speech  here. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  29 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don’t  so  understand  it. 

Senator  Johnston.  That  will  be  the  ground.  He  has  covered  the 
ground  in  his  speech. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  understand  that  I  am  required  to  make 
an  affidavit.  I  got  much  of  this  from  the  counsel  for  these  parties, 
the  counsel  for  Browne  and  Broderick  and  others. 

Senator  Burrows.  Oh,  no;  the  usual  application  for  a  continuance. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Simply  a  motion  for  .continuance. 

Senator  Burroivs.  Stating  the  grounds  upon  which  the  continu¬ 
ance  is  asked. 

(Whereupon  the  committee  adjourned.) 

FRIDAY,  SEPTEMBER  23,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

The  subcommittee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and  the  following 
proceedings  were  had : 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  a  motion,  Mr.  Chairman,  which  I  desire  to 
submit. 

(Judge  Hanecy  hands  paper  to  the  chairman  of  the  committee.) 

Senator  Burrows.  The  chair  desires  to  announce  at  the  beginning 
of  this  session  that  the  committee  will  permit  the  appearance^of  Mr. 
Austrian  and  Judge  Hanecy  as  counsel  in  this  investigation. 

Yesterday  it  was  suggested,  Judge  Hanecy,  that  you  put  in  form 
the  application  for  a  continuance  as  you  would  like  it,  and  the  chair 
will  ask  you  now  to  read  it  to  the  committee  as  you  wish  to  present  it. 

Judge  Hanecy  (reading)  : 

A.  hearing  before  the  subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elec 
tions  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  before  the  Hon.  Julius  C.  Burrows 
chairman,  Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble,  Hon.  W.  B.  Heyburn,  Hon.  Joseph  F.  John¬ 
son,  Hon.  Thomas  H.  Paynter,  in  re  investigation  of  the  election  of  the  Hon. 
William  Lorimer. 

And  now  comes  Elbridge  Hanecy,  counsel  for  the  Hon.  William  Lorimer,  by 
permission  of  said  committee,  and  moves  this  honorable  body  to  postpone  the 
hearing  of  this  investigation  until  after  the  trial  of  the  cases  of  People  v. 
Browne  and  People  v.  Broderick  in  the  criminal  court  of  Sangamon  County! 
Ill.,  and  until  after  the  election  of  members  of  the  legislature  of  Illinois  to  be 
held  on  the  Sth  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1910.  And  your  relator  shows  unto 
this  honorable  committee  that — 

The  charges  made  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  in  this  matter  were  pre¬ 
sented  by  Mr.  Clifford  W.  Barnes  in  a  communication,  affidavit,  and  exhibits 
prepared  and  sworn  to  by  said  Barnes  on  the  6th  day  of  June,  1910,  as  appears 
in  the  Congressional  Record  of  the  second  session  of  the  Sixty-first  Congress 
Dn  pages  7801-7810. 

(1)  That  said  charges  made  by  said  Clifford  W.  Barnes  were  sworn  to;  that 
in  the  public  hearing  before  this  honorable  committee  in  Chicago  on  the  22d 
lay  of  September,  A.  D.  1910,  the  said  Clifford  W.  Barnes  stated  to  this  lion- 
Drable  body  as  follows: 

“  It  is  quite  without  the  province  of  the  Legislative  Voters’  League  to  employ 
lawyers  in  this  matter,  nor  have  we  the  evidence  at  hand  which  would  make  it 
possible  to  submit  to  your  body  such  testimony  as  would  give  to  you  the  proper 
lata  on  which  you  should  act.” 

(2)  That  the  indictment  set  forth  in  the  communication  of  said  Barnes,  and 
published  in  the  Congressional  Record,  consists  of  13  counts;  that  ’  said 
indictment  charges  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  Democratic  leader  of  the  house  of  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  Illinois,  with  bribing  Charles  A.  White  to  vote  for  Senator 
Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator ;  that  said  Browne  was  tried  in  the  criminal 
aourt  of  Cook  County,  Ill.,  on  said  indictment,  and  was  found  not  guilty  by  the 


30  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


jury,  and  a  judgment  of  not  guilty  on  all  of  the  counts  of  said  indictment  was 
entered  of  record  in  said  criminal  court  on  September  the  9th,  A.  D.  1910. 

(3)  That  said  Lee  O'Neil  Browne  and  Robert  E.  Wilson  were  indicted  in 
Sangamon  County,  Ill.,  on  a  charge  of  conspiracy  to  bribe,  etc.  ;  that  John 
Broderick,  a  state  senator  of  Illinois,  was  indicted  by  the  grand  jury  of  San¬ 
gamon  County,  Ill.,  on  a  charge  of  bribing  one  Holdslaw,  a  member  of  the 
senate  of  Illinois,  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  Senator. 

That  said  indictments  against  Browne  and  Broderick  are  now  pending  in 
said  court  and  undisposed  of,  and  the  state’s  attorney  of  said  county  lias  given 
notice  that  he  will  set  said  cases  down  for  trial  for  about  the  middle  of  October, 
1910. 

(4)  That  said  Lee  O'Neil  Browne,  Robert  E.  Wilson,  and  Senator  Broderick 
are  all  candidates  for  reelection  to  the  legislature  of  Illinois,  and  all  were 
nominated  at  the  direct  primaries  held  September  15.  1910,  in  their  different 
senatorial  districts;  that  47  or  48  members  of  the  last  legislature  who  voted  for 
Senator  Lorimer  were  renominated  at  the  direct  primaries  held  on  the  15th 
day  of  September,  A.  D.  1910,  of  which  number  25  are  Democrats  and  the  bal¬ 
ance  are  Republicans;  that  others  who  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer  may  be  can¬ 
didates  for  reelection  by  petition  on  November  8,  1910;  that  said  Clifford  W. 
Barnes  and  other  members  of  the  so-called  Legislative  1  oters  League  went 
into  most  of  the  legislative  districts  of  the  members  who  voted  for  Senator 
Lorimer  and  opposed  the  rewomination  of  every  man  on  the  Republican  or 
Democratic  ticket  who  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer ;  that  said  Clifford  W.  Barnes 
and  his  associates,  including  the  Chicago  Tribune,  have  threatened  and  are 
threatening  to  use  every  effort  to  defeat  every  man  on  either  the  Republican  or 
Democratic  ticket  who  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  Lnited  States  Senatoi , 
that  if  this  investigation  goes  on  before  the  election  to  be  held  November  8  next, 
and  the  men  who  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  are 
called  as  witnesses  before  this  honorable  body,  they  will  be  taken  away  from 
their  legislative  districts  and  prevented  from  making  the  proper  and  necessary 
canvass  and  campaign  to  be  reelected;  that  if  this  investigation  goes  on  before 
said  election,  the  testimony  of  such  candidates  before  this  honorable  body  and 
the  testimony  of  others  who  are  opposing  such  candidates  will  be  used  by  the 
Chicago  Tribune  and  the  associated  newspapers  in  combination  with  it  to 
harass,  annoy,  and  defeat  such  candidates  in  their  different  legislative  districts; 
that  if  said  Browne  and  said  Broderick  are  called  as  witnesses  before  this  hon¬ 
orable  body  their  counsel  has  informed  them  that  they  must  not  testify,  as 
something  might  develop  that  would  disclose  their  defense  in  the  criminal  action 
now  pending  in  Sangamon  County,  which  may  injuriously  prejudice  the  rights 
of  said  Browne  and  said  Broderick;  that  if  Senator  Lorimer  is  deprived  of  the 
testimony  of  said  Browne  and  said  Broderick  in  this  investigation  it  will  seri¬ 
ously  prejudice  his  rights;  that  the  election  of  the  members  of  the  legislature  of 
Illinois  will  take  place  on  the  8th  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1910 ,  that  the  trials 
of  the  cases  of  the  People  v.  Browne  and  the  People  v.  Broderick,  in  Sangamon 
County,  will  be  disposed  of  about  the  same  time;  that  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  will  not  meet  until  the  first  Monday  of  December,  A.  D.  1910,  and  if  this 
investigation  should  go  on  immediately  no  final  result  or  disposition  could  be 
arrived  at  until  after  that  time;  that  there  will  be  ample  time  between  the 
close  of  election  of  November  8  and  the  conclusion  of  the  trials  of  said  Browne 
and  said  Broderick  and  the  meeting  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for 
this  honorable  committee  to  take  up  and  investigate  and  report  on  the  matters 
now  pending  before  it;  that  if  the  investigation  proceeds  now  or  at  any  time 
before  the  election  and  the  trial  of  said  Browne  and  Broderick  cases  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  and  the  testimony  there  taken  will  be  used  by  the  said  Clifford  W  • 
Barnes,  his  associates,  and  the  Chicago  Tribune  to  harass,  annoy,  and  injure 
the  different  candidates  running  for  the  legislature  and  the  three  defendants  in 
the  cases  now'  pending  in  Sangamon  County;  that  in  the  public  statement  made 
by  the  said  Clifford  W.  Barnes  before  this  honorable  committee  on  September  22, 
1910,  said  Barnes  used  this  language  in  his  effort  to  obtain  an  immediate 

hear  in  ^ ! 

“  Your  action  now  would  help  immensely  in  clenring  out  of  this  campaign  a 

lot  of  men  who  ought  to  be  cleared  out.”  ...  ..  . 

That  the  wdiole  purpose  of  those  wdio  are  pushing  this  investigation  for  an 
immediate  hearing  is  to  create  political  capital  for  the  members  of  the  so-called 
Legislative  Voters’  League  and  their  friends,  and  to  injure  politically  the  candi¬ 
dates  of  both  parties  wTho  will  not  obey  the  orders  of  the  said  Barnes  and  his 
so-called  league  and  his  newspaper  associates. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  31 

That  for  the  reasons  above  given,  as  well  as  those  stated  at  the  public  meeting 
f  this  honorable  committee,  I  respectfully  submit  that  the  investigation  should 
e  postponed  until  after  the  legislative  election  on  November  8  and  the  trial  of 
be  Browne  and  Broderick  cases  in  October. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Elbridge  Hanecy, 
Counsel  for  William  Lorimer. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  retire  for  a  moment  to  con¬ 
i’ der  this  application. 

( W hereupon  the  committee  did  retire,  and  upon  reconvening  the 
ollowing  further  procedings  were  had :) 

Senator  Burrows.  The  chairman  desires  to  state  that  the  committee 
as  considered  this  application,  and  Senator  Paynter  will  announce 
he  decision  of  the  committee. 

Senator  Paynter.  The  committee  has  considered  the  motion  for 
ostponement  of  the  hearing  of  the  case  and  the  statements  contained 
i  the  affidavit  filed  upon  that  motion,  and  it  has  reached  the  conclu- 
ion  that  the  reasons  assigned  are  not  sufficient  to  justify  the  commit - 
3e  in  postponing  the  hearing  of  this  matter  at  this  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  the  committee  would  be  obliged 
■>  you  if  you  will  submit  a  list  of  the  witnesses  you  desire  to  have 
filed  in  this  investigation. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  witnesses,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  desire  to  have 
filed  here  at  this  time  are  embodied  in  the  two  lists  sent  to  the  chair- 
um  on  September  19  and  20.  I  have  not  duplicates  with  me,  but  I 
in  have  them  very  shortly  here. 

Senator  Johnston.  We  have  those  mentioned  in  the  lists. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  have  the  lists  to  which  you  refer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then,  of  course,  as  the  investigation  develops,  the 
istimony  of  some  witnesses  who  may  be  put  upon  the  stand  that  re¬ 
tire  elucidation  or  corroboration,  why,  we  will  furnish  as  promptly 
5  possible  the  additional  list  of  witnesses.  There  are  some  35  wit- 
eses  named  on  those  two  lists,  as  I  recall  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  that  a  list  of  their  witnesses 
3  submitted  to  us.  It  is  the  common  practice  here ;  in  fact,  it  is  the 
w  of  this  State,  that  in  all  of  these  cases — that  is,  in  all  criminal  or 
lasi  criminal  cases — a  list  of  the  witnesses  shall  accompany  the 
large.  We  have  no  knowledge  now,  whatever,  except  the  general 
dk  here  of  the  names  of  the  witnesses  to  be  called. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  no  objection  to  that.  We  will  furnish 
udge  Hanecy  a  list  of  the  witnesses  without  delay. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  ought  to  have  a  full  list  and  we  ought  to  have 
sufficiently  long  to  know  the  different  witnesses  who  are  to  be 
died  so  as  to  know  something  about  them  and  be  prepared  to  cross- 
famine  them,  if  we  are  permitted  to  do  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  Chair  was  about  to  state  that  after  the  ad¬ 
ornment  the  committee  would  be  pleased  to  confer  with  counsel  in 
lation  to  the  list  of  witnesses  proposed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  And  the  committee  will  arrange  to  meet  you  at 
ich  time  and  place  as  might  be  convenient.  We  would  like  to  have 
ie  conference  soon,  and  possibly  immediately  upon  the  adjourn- 
ent  for  the  noon  recess. 

Mr.  Austrian.  My  time  is  at  your  disposal  entirely. 

Senator  Burrows.  Thank  you. 


32  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOR1MER. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Will  I  be  informed,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  that  will 
be?  I  do  not  know  when  that  conference  will  be  held,  and  I  may 
want  to  do  something  else  unless  there  is  a  time  fixed  for  it.  I  have 
no  knowledge  of  when  it  will  take  place. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  the  Chair  will  state,  that  if  agreeable  to 
you  the  committee  will  meet  with  the  attorneys  immediately  after 
the  adjournment  of  this  morning’s  session. 

The  committee  desires  to  have  at  the  outset  the  official  record  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  Illinois  legislature  covering  the  period  of  the 
contest  for  the  election  of  the  United  States  Senator,  of  course,  in¬ 
cluding  the  votes,  day  by  day,  and  the  entire  record.  It  occurs  to  the 
committee  that  possibly  counsel  might  agree  without  putting  the 
Government  to  the  expense  of  sending  for  the  custodian  of  these 
records  with  a  subpoena  duces  tecum  to  bring  the  records,  and  the 
Senator  in  his  address  to  the  Senate,  as  published  in  the  Record  oi 
May  28,  set  forth  what  purports  to  be  an  accurate  copy  in  full  oi 
the  proceedings  of  the  legislature  in  each  house  and  in  the  joint  as¬ 
sembly,  together  with  the  votes  cast  each  day  and  the  names  of  th( 
persons  voting.  I  suggest  to  counsel  that  I  will  place  this  record  u 
their  hands  and  possibly  counsel  can  agree  with  reference  to  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  at  hand  and  ready  to  b( 
produced  at  any  time  certified  copies  of  the  documents,  certified  to  b} 
the  secretary  of  state,  of  all  the  documents  that  you  have  referred  to 
and  I  think  Judge  Hanecy  and  I  will  have  no  trouble  in  agreeing 
that  the  certified  copies  may  go  in  in  lieu  of  calling  the  clerk  anc 
secretary  of  state.  We  will  have  no  trouble  about  that  at  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Do  I  understand,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  will  be  { 
record  of  the  meetings  of  the  two  houses  separately  on  the  first  da^ 
required  by  the  federal  law,  and  then  the  joint  session  on  the  nex 
day,  and  each  day  thereafter? 

Senator  Burrows.  The  Chair  stated  that  in  the  address  of  Senato: 
Lorimer  he  set  forth  the  entire  proceedings  in  both  houses  and  als< 
the  joint  assembly  bearing  upon  the  election  of  the  senator. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  only  reason  I  ask  was  so  I  might  know,  whei 
we  got  to  that,  just  what  the  committee  desires. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  the  chair  will  place  this  record  in  th 
hands  of  the  attorneys,  and  it  is  hoped  that  on  consultation  you  wil 
agree  on  what  will  be  submitted  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  have  that  all  here,  and  the  judge  has  them  alsc 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yo;  I  have  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  will  furnish  the  judge  an  extra  copy. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  a  matter,  it  is  hoped,  that  the  attorney 
will  be  able  to  agree  upon  without  any  controversy. 

The  chair  desires  to  state  in  behalf  of  the  committee  that  the  pur 
pose  of  the  committee  is  to  proceed  at  once  with  this  investigatior 
and  issue  the  necessary  subpoenas  to  compel  the  attendance  of  th 
witnesses  required.  Owing  to  the  absence  of  two  members  of  th 
committee,  Messrs.  Frazier  and  Bulkeley,  both  of  whom  are  ex 
pected  between  now  and  Monday  morning,  and  for  the  reasons  statec 
and  out  of  courtesy  to  our  colleagues,  the  committee  will  now  ad 
journ  until  Monday  morning  at  10  o’clock,  and  by  that  time  it  is  ex 
pected  the  witnesses  called  will  be  present  and  the  committee  enable' 
to  proceed  with  the  investigation. 

[(Whereupon  the  committee  adjourned.) 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  33 

MONDAY,  SEPTEMBER  26,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

The  committee  consisting  of  Senators  Burrows,  Heyburn,  Gamble. 
Paynter,  Johnston,  and  Bulkeley  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  and 
the  following  proceedings  were  had : 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  be  in  order.  Do  the  coun¬ 
sel  agree  upon  the  record  as  to  the  vote  in  the  legislature? 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  have  not  agreed  yet,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  we 
will  do  that.  There  is  not  much  doubt  about  it.  Will  the  committee 
iesire  that  at  the  beginning? 

Senator  Burrows.  Oh,  no;  that  can  be  postponed,  if  you  will 
agree  upon  it.  The  secretary  of  state  very  kindly  sent  the  committee 
a  copy  of  the  journal  of  both  houses,  so  that  if  you  have  a  certified 
iopy  prepared,  why,  that  would  be  sufficient. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  prepared  since  the  last  hearing  a  brief 
synopsis  showing  the  house  journal  and  senate  journal  in  so  far  as  it 
nay  be  material,  I  think  in  this  hearing,  and  if  it  can  be  read,  any 
inaccuracy  can  be  corrected  by  the  other  side.  There  can  not  be  any 
inaccuracy,  because  the  house  journal  and  the  senate  journal  is  here, 
lut  I  think  this  will  shorten  it  up. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  are  obliged  to  you  and  we  will  inspect  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  can  not  agree  with  that.  That 
is,  I  can  not  agree — I  do  not  want  the  committee  to  misunderstand 
me — I  wont  agree  that  this  shall  be  substituted  for  the  journal  of  each 
tiouse,  the  house  and  senate  journal  being  official,  while  this  is  a 
compilation  by  counsel. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Very  well,  if  I  may  state  what  it  is,  Mr.  Chairman, 
[  think  you  will  find  that  it  will  shorten  everything  up.  I  will  agree 
:hat  the  house  and  senate  journal  should  be  put  in  and  be  referred 
:o  in  lieu  of  this  at  any  time.  But  I  have  compiled  here  the  number 
if  members  of  both  houses,  whether  they  are  Republican  or  Democrat, 
:he  number  of  ballots  taken  with  the  vote,  the  votes  on  the  first  ballot, 
md  the  votes  on  the  last  ballot,  the  ninety-fifth  ballot,  the  number 
if  ballots  and  the  pages  of  the  journal  and  the  house  register  showing 
:he  vote  that  Senator  Lorimer  got.  That  is  all  it  is. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  no  objection  to  its  being  used  as  a  means 
if  getting  at  the  official  record,  but  I  do  object  to  its  being  used 
ifficially  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  had  understood,  Mr.  Austrian,  that  you  had  a 
certified  copy  of  the  proceclings. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  a  certified  copy  of  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir;  I  will  just  refer  to  it.  It  is  on  pages - . 

Senator  Burrows.  We  have  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Very  well.  That  is  certified  to  by  the  secretary  of 

state. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  understood  you  Saturday  to  say  that  you  had 
i  certified  copy - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  a  certified  copy  of  the  primary  vote.  That 
ioes  not  appear  in  the  house  journal. 

Senator  Burrows.  Perhaps  we  can  pass  this  for  the  moment  and 
counsel  can  agree  on  it.  Otherwise  we  will  determine  it.  What  have 

you  there? 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 3 


34  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  wanted  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  have  pre¬ 
pared  a  memorandum  over  Sunday  referring  to  the  Senate  cases 
upon  all  questions  that  I  think  will  arise  here — that  is,  decisions  of 
the  Senate  and  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  and 
the  law  applicable  to  this  case  as  I  understand  it.  I  should  like  the 
privilege  of  giving  counsel  a  copy  of  this  as  well  as  each  member  of 
the  committee,  and  I  think  it  will  aid  them  and  shorten  up  the  pio- 
ceedings  very  much.  If  there  is  no  objection  to  it  I  will  do  so. 

Senator  Burrows.  Show  it  to  counsel.  The  committee  is  quite 
familiar  with  the  proceedings  and  the  decisions  in  election  cases,  but 

this  will  possibly  aid  the  committee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  will  aid  the  committee  because— there  is  the  C  lark 
case,  for  instance,  covering  three  large  volumes,  and  this  is  the  first 
case  where  the  rules  of  evidence  have  been  made,  and  there  aie  other 

cases  that  are  of  interest  on  this  question. 

Would  there  be  any  objection  if  we  asked  the  official  reporter  of 
the  committee  to  furnish  us  with  a  copy  or  transcript  of  the  proceed¬ 
ings?  It  will  make  the  paging  agree  with  the  copy  before  the  com¬ 
mittee.  if  we  can  buy  one  from  the  reporter — it  will  make  the  paging 
of  our  transcript  and  the  committee  s  transcript  identical,  and  we 
would  like  the  privilege  of  employing  the  official  stenographer  in 

that  respect.  .  '  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Any  arrangement  that  you  make  with  the  official 

stenographer  will  be  satisfactory  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  proceed? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  If  the  committee  please,  before  Mr.  Austrian  pro¬ 
ceeds  and  before  this  is  received  and  before  this  is  passed— I  do  not 
know  what  the  disposition  of  the  committee  w  ill  be  as  to  arguments, 
but  I  can  not  consent  that  they  shall  make  an  argument  in  this  way, 
in  a  brief,  and  that  we  shall  not  be  permitted  to  do  so  at  any  time 
hereafter.  All  I  want  is  an  equal  opportunity. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  understand  this  is  presented  to  the  committee 
simply  as  a  memorandum  for  the  convenience  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  But  it  is  a  brief  argument. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  argument  in  it  at  all.  Not  a  word  from  me.  1 
have  not  said  a  word  in  the  whole  paper.  I  have  simply  cited  ex¬ 
cerpts  from  the  various  cases— not  a  word  of  argument.  j 

Mr  Chairman,  we  would  like  to  get  before  this  committee  the 
statutes  of  Illinois  known  as  section  31.  chapter  38,  of  Hurd's  Ee- 
vised  Statutes  of  1908.  I  have  here  likewise  section  39,  being  section 
2  of  our  criminal  court  section  on  bribery,  and  chaptei  46,  section 
480.  of  Hurd’s  Bevised  Statutes  of  1908,  being  provisions  of  our 
statutes  with  reference  to  the  primary  vote  on  candidates  for  I  nited 
States  Senator.  I  will  not  take  time  to  read  the  two  sections— the  sec¬ 
tions  of  the  criminal  statute  on  the  primary  ballot  for  United  States 
Senator — but  the  provisions  of  our  statutes  are  as  follows  it  is  very 
short  and  I  will  read  it : 


Any  candidate  for  United  States  Senator  may  have  his  name  Printed  upor 
the  primary  ballot  of  his  State,  not  less  than  thirty  days  prior  to  the  date  oi 
the  April  primary,  in  any  year,  a  petition  signed  by  not  less  than  tlnee  thousa 
primary  electors,  nor  more  than  five  thousand  members  of,  and  affiliated  with 
the  nartv  of  which  he  is  a  candidate.  And  no  candidate  for  United  States 
Senator  who  fails  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  have  his  nam< 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  35 


•inted  upon  any  primary  ballot:  Provided ,  That  the  vote  upon  candidates  for 
nited  States  Senator  shall  be  had  for  the  sole  purpose  of  ascertaining  the 
ntiment  of  the  voters  of  the  respective  parties. 

If  I  may  be  permitted  I  will  hand  to  the  official  stenographer  the 
ctions  of  the  statute  to  which  I  have  referred,  as  it  will  be  conve- 
ient  in  lieu  of  reading  them  now. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  any  objection  to  that? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Xo. 

(The  sections  referred  to  are  as  follows:) 

Every  person  who  shall  offer  or  attempt  to  bribe  any  member  of  the  general 
:sembly,  judge,  justice  of  the  peace,  sheriff,  coroner,  clerk,  constable,  jailer, 
torney-general,  State’s  attorney,  or  other  officer,  ministerial  or  judicial,  or 
ly  legislative,  executive,  or  other  officer  of  any  incorporated  city,  town,  or 
llage,  or  any  officer  elected  or  appointed  by  virtue  of  any  law  of  this  State,  in 
ly  of  the  cases  mentioned  in  the  preceding  section,  and  every  such  officer  who 
all  propose  or  agree  to  receive  a  bribe  in  any  of  such  cases,  shall  be  fined 
■t  exceeding  five  thousand  dollars. 

Punishment :  Whoever  corruptly,  directly  or  indirectly,  gives  any  money  or 
her  bribe,  present,  reward,  promise,  contract,  obligation,  or  security  for  the 
yment  of  any  money,  present,  reward,  or  any  other  thing,  to  any  judge,  justice 
the  peace,  sheriff,  coroner,  clerk,  constable,  jailer,  attorney-general,  State’s 
torney,  county  attorney,  member  of  the  general  assembly,  or  other  officer, 
inisterial  or  judicial,  or  any  legislative,  executive,  or  other  officer  of  any 
corporated  city,  town,  or  village,  or  any  officer  elected  or  appointed 
!  virtue  of  any  law  of  this  State,  after  his  election  or  appointment, 
♦ther  before  or  after  he  is  qualified,  with  intent  to  influence  his  act, 
te,  opinion,  decision,  or  judgment  on  any  matter,  question,  cause,  or  proceed- 
g  which  may  be  then  pending,  or  may  by  law  come  or  be  brought  before  him, 

:  his  official  capacity,  or  to  cause  him  to  execute  any  of  the  powers  in  him 
sted.  or  to  perform  any  duty  of  him  required,  with  partiality  or  favor,  or 
(her wise  than  is  required  by  law,  or  in  consideration  that  such  officer  being 
;ithorized  in  the  line  of  his  duty  to  contract  for  any  advertising  or  for  the 
rnishing  of  any  labor  or  material,  shall  directly  or  indirectly  arrange  to  re¬ 
ave,  or  shall  receive,  or  shall  withhold  from  the  parties  so  contracted  with, 

2  y  portion  of  the  contract  price,  whether  that  price  be  fixed  by  law  or  agree- 
Jint,  or  in  consideration  that  such  officer  hath  nominated  or  appointed  any  per- 
m  to  any  office  or  exercised  any  power  in  him  vested  or  performed  any  duty 

<  him  required,  with  partiality  or  favor,  or  otherwise  contrary  to  law,  the 
irson  so  giving  and  the  officer  so  receiving  any  money,  bribe,  present,  reward, 
jomise,  contract,  obligation,  or  security,  with  intent  or  for  the  purpose  or 
1  nsideration  aforesaid,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  bribery,  and  shall  be  pun¬ 
ned  by  confinement  in  the  penitentiary  for  a  term  of  not  less  than  one  year 

<  more  than  five  years. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Those  are  the  sections  that  are  referred  to. 

In  that  connection,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  to  offer  in  evidence  a 
<py  of  the  primary  ballot  for  United  States  Senator,  certified  by  the 
cretarv  of  state,  showing  Albert  J.  Hopkins  received  168,305  votes ; 
illiam  E.  Mason,  86,596  votes;  George  Edwin  Foss,  121,110  votes; 

:  d  William  G.  Webster,  14,704  votes;  and  scattering,  1  vote. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  know  why  this  is  offered  or  how  it  is 
nterial  here.  The  question  here  is,  Was  there  bribery  or  corrupt 
pact  ices  in  the  election  of  William  Lorimer.  Now,  the  state  statute, 

'  fich  is  advisory,  or  whatever  it  may  be,  on  the  election  of  the 
hiitod  States  Senator  can  not  supplant  the  constitutional  provision 
*at  the  legislature  only  in  the  joint  assembly — the  body  created  by 
te  federal  act  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States — is  the 
1  ly  thing  that  can  control  there,  and  why  all  this  should  go  in  here 
lean  not  understand.  There  can  be  no  question  but  what  the  joint 
isembly,  a  body  created  bv  the  act  of  Congress  of  1866,  passed  under 
te  Federal  Constitution,  authorized  t lie  election  of  (lie  United  States 


36 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Senator  by  that  joint  assembly,  and  a  United  States  Senator  wa 
elected  by  that  joint  assembly,  so  that  this  vote  or  this  statute  of  th 
State  permitting  a  vote  of  that  kind  can  have  no  effect  as  agains 
federal  act  or  the  Federal  Constitution.  I  do  not  know  why  thi 

record  should  be  encumbered  by  that. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  would  suggest  of  course  it  is.  common  know 
edoe  that  Mr.  Hopkins  was  the  Republican  nominee  for  Unite 
States  Senator.  Why  not  just  admit  in  the  record  that  that  is  tru< 
so  as  not  to  encumber  the  record  with  all  these  figures . 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  That  is  my  purpose  in  making  the  objection. 
Senator  Paynter.  I  think  that  would  answer  all  the  pin  poses  c 

counsel  on  the  other  side.  ..  AT  P1  • 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  permitted,  I  would  like  to  do  that,  Mr.  Chan 

man.  and  to  show  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  not  a  candidate  at  tfe 

Prjudge  Hanecy.  The  admission  should  be  that  Mr.  Foss,  Mr  Hoi 
kins,  and  William  E.  Mason,  and  possibly  some  others  were  candidate 
at  that  primary  election,  at  that  so-called  direct  primary. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  were  only  four  Republicans,  Milliam;] 
Webster,  George  Edmund  Foss,  William  E.  Mason,  and  Albert  . 

H Senator  Burrows.  They  were  candidates  in  the  primaries? 

Mr.  Austrian.  On  the  Republican  ticket;  yes,  sir.  That  ma 

go  in  lieu  of  a  certified  copy  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  I  beg  pardon  .  _ .  „  * 

Mr  Austrian.  Will  that  be  submitted  to  you  m  lieu  of  a  copj  ! 
Senator  Burrows.  Yes.  That  will  not  cumber  the  record  so  nine 
Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  offer  in  evidence  a  certified  copy  as  , 
the  members  of  the  joint  assembly;  that  is,  the  house  and  senatd, 
the  State  of  Illinois  in  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly.  That 
essential  because  we  must  show  that  the  various  men  whose  nam 
will  be  mentioned  here  were  members  of  the  house  or  senate  >odv. 
Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  shown  by  your  record  here— the  offici 

^Mr  Austrian.  This  is  the  official  record,  certified  to  by  the  sea 
tarv  of  state.  Counsel  refers  to  the  large  volume  and  it  would  ta 
more  time  to  handle  it  in  that  way  m  getting  it  into  the  record. 
Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  any  objection  ( 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  know;  I  have  not  seen  it.  It  may 

accurate  and  it  may  be  not.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  examine  it .  .  .  , 

judoe  Hanecy.  I  could  not  tell ;  there  are  204  of  the  joint  asseml 

and  all  are  elected.  J 

Mr  Austrian.  Let  it  be  understood,  if  it  is  not  accurate  it  c 

be  made  so  later.  I  only  have  the  secretary  of  state  s  certificate. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  journals  are  here,  and  they  are  official.  ( 

Mr  ^Austrian.  We  did  not  want  to  take  time  to  read  that  p; 

of  it  and  go  through  the  whole  volume.  ,  ,  .,  , 

Judge  Hanecy.  But  the  committee  have  already  asked  that 
agree  upon  it.  and  I  agreed  that  we  would  agree;  therefore,  I  do  . 
see  the  necessity  of  encumbering  the  record  by  these  things.  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  have  got  to  have  the  names  of  the  memb 
of  both  houses,  because  they  will  be  referred  to  repeatedly. 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  They  are  in  the  official  record. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  37 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  is  more  official  than  that  is. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  more  official  than  this  because  it  is  estab- 
ffied  by  law  as  the  official  record  of  both  houses. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  no  objection  to  that.  We  will  agree  as 
>  the  names  of  the  members  of  both  houses  should  be  in  this  record. 
Judge  Hanecy.  They  are  in  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  have  not  been  put  in  evidence. 

Senator  Burroavs.  They  are  in,  are  they  not? 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  have  agreed  to  it  already. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then  I  will  withdraw  the  offer  for  the  time  being, 
id  if  we  do  not  agree  I  will  put  them  in  later. 

Senator  Burrows.  They  are  withdrawn  then,  for  the  time  being. 
Mr.  Austrian.  We  will  offer  now,  if  the  chairman  please,  and  the 
unmittee,  the  vote  of  each  house ;  that  is,  the  vote  of  the  senate,  and 
ie  vote  of  the  house  on  January  19,  1909.  The  vote  of  the  house  is 
>und  in  the  house  journal,  page  68. 

Senator  Burrows.  Haven't  you  already  made  that  offer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Iso,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  already  in. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  as  I  understand  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is,  the  house  journal  and  the  senate  journal 
mtains  all  that ;  that  is  why  I  did  not  consider  it  necessary  from  the 

art  of  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  do  you  mean,  when  it  was  offered  in  evi- 
mce?  Do  you  consider  this  is  now  in  evidence? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  consider  that  you  and  I  have  agreed  at  the  re- 
.lest  of  the  committee  that  we  will  agree  that  the  official  record 
rovided  by  law  shall  be  offered  here,  and  shall  be  evidence  in  this 
ise  of  every  vote  that  was  taken  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  The 
immittee  has  asked  us  to  do  that  and  you  and  I  said  we  would  do 
lat. 

Mr.  Austrian.  When  will  you  do  it? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  said  this  morning  that  you  and  I  hadn’t  got  to¬ 
other  but  we  would  do  it,  and  I  assume  and  expect  we  will  do  that 

sreafter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then  we  may  consider  that  in? 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  may  consider  that  in  and  if  necessary  the  two 

ill  journals  shall  go  in. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  ask  the  committee  that  Charles  A.  White  be  called 
3  a  witness. 

Charles  A.  White,  being  sworn  as  a  witness  in  said  investigation, 
rul  duly  sworn  by  the  chairman,  testified  as  follows: 

Examined  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Mr.  White  will  you  state  to  the  committee  your  name,  age,  resi- 
ence,  and  occupation? — A.  My  name  is  Charles  A.  White,  my  resi- 
ence  O’Fallon,  Ill,  my  age  is  29  years. 

Q.  What  is  your  business? — A.  I  am  not  occupied  at  anything  at 

le  present  time. 

Q.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  of  the 
tate  of  Illinois? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  were  you  elected? — A.  November  3,  1908. 

Q.  Prior  to  your  election  what  was  your  business? — A.  I  was  con- 
uctor  on  the  street  railway — interurban  railway. 


38  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Senator  Burrows.  Speak  a  little  louder,  please. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Whereabouts ?— A.  At  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.;  I  was  with  the  com. 
pany  that  operated  at  East  St.  Louis. 

Q  Any  other  occupation  immediately  prior  to  your  election  to  th( 
forty-sixth  general  assembly? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  employed  by  the  labor  bodies  to  be  at  Spring 
field.  Ill.? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Springfield  is  the  place  in  Illinois  where  the  legislature  meets 
is  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  spend  in  Springfield,  Ill.,  and  doing  what  ?— 
A.  I  Avas  there  during  the  session  of  1907 ;  I  Avas  state  legislative  rep 
resentatAe  of  the  Street  Electric  Raihvay  Employees  of  Illinois. 

Q.  After  you  had  been  elected,  you  were  elected  as  a  member  of  tin 
house,  AATere  you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  being  tAvo  bodies,  the  house  and  the  senate? — A.  Th< 
house  and  the  senate ;  yes. 

Q,  State  to  the  committee  how  many  members  there  are  in  th 
houses — how  manv  in  the  senate. — A.  One  hundred  and  fiftv-tlire 
members  of  the  house  and  51  in  the  senate. 

Q.  After  you  were  elected  as  a  member  of  the  house,  did  you  be 
come  acquainted  with  Lee  O’Neil  BroAA-ne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  Avas  Lee  O’Neil  BroAvne? — A.  He  was  the  minority  leade 
in  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  of  the  house. 

Q.  On  Avliat  side  ? — A.  The  Democratic  side. 

Q.  Were  you  a  Republican  or  a  Democrat  ? — A.  Democrat. 

Q.  What,  if  any,  communication  did  you  have  with  Lee  O'Nei 
BroAvne  immediately  after  or  shortly  after  your  election  to  the  forty 
sixth  general  assembly? — A.  Well,  there  were  a  number  of  communi 
cations;  the  first  one,  I  believe,  was  congratulating  me  upon  my  ele( 
tion  and  notifying  me  that  he  was  a  candidate  for  minority  leadei 
I  think  that  was  the  first  one,  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Q.  That  was  on  or  about  the  7th  of  NoA^ember,  was  it  not,  1908?- 
A.  Yes,  sir;  if  T  remember  correctly. 

Q.  When  did  the  house  convene  in  1909?  The  forty-sixth  genen 
assembly,  as  you  recall  it? — A.  On  January  6. 

Q.  (Showing  witness  paper.)  Will  you  look  at  the  letter  which 
now  hand  you  and  tell  me  if  that  is  the  communication  that  you  reft 
to? — A.  This  is  one  of  them;  yes,  sir.  I  Avould  not  be  positive  aboi 
it  being  the  first ;  I  think  it  is  though. 

Mr.  Austrian  (handing  letter  to  Judge  Hanecv).  I  will  shoAV  yo 
these  two  at  the  same  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  is  this,  anything  except  to  show - 

Mr.  Austrian.  To  show  his  efforts  to  get  his  support  for  minorit 
leader. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Nothing  special  in  it, 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  same  thing. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Hoav  are  those  material? 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  would  show  the  relation  of  the  parties. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  BroAvne  is  not  a  party  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  When  I  said  the  relation  of  the  parties  I  refern 
to  the  relations  of  Mr.  BroAvne,  the  man  charged  with  having  bribt 
this  member  of  the  legislature.  I  want  to  show  the  relations  of  tl 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  39 

two  members  of  the  house,  one  a  Democratic  minority  leader  and  the 
other  a  member  of  the  house. 

Judge  Hanecy.  They  are  both  members  of  the  house. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  know  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  didn’t  know,  the  way  you  stated  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  One  a  Democratic  minority  leader  and  the  other  a 
member  of  the  house. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  know  what  materiality  there  is  in  this, 
Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Simulv  to  show  the  relations  of  the  parties,  that 

is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Between  whom  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Between  Mr.  Browne  and  Mr.  White.  The  Senate 
Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  have  held  that  it  is  perfectly 
competent,  that  you  can  even  show  bribery  in  the  caucus. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  not  the  question  I  am  raising.  When  you 
get  to  the  bribery,  that  is  another  question.  This  is  a  lot  of  stuff 
which,  I  assume,  does  not  show  that  nor  tend  to. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  tends  to  show  that  this  man  was  the  minority 
leader,  and  the  witness  in  the  chair  became  one  of  his  supporters  at 
that  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  says  he  was  the  minority  leader;  we  will  admit 
that,  and  we  will  admit  that  he  was  a  candidate  for  that  position.  I 
have  not  read  the  letters,  and  do  not  know  what  is  in  them.  One  of 
them  has  three  pages  and  the  other  two  pages  each. 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  simply  show  the  solicitation  of  the  witness, 
White,  to  support  hirn  in  his  minority  leadership  candidacy. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  the  witness  has  already  stated 
that  Mr.  Browne  was  the  minority  leader.  These  communications 
shed  no  additional  light  on  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  T  will  let  the  witness  state  the  fact  in  lieu  of  the 
letters  if  you  desire,  but  counsel  may  object  because  it  is  expressed 

in  the  letters.' 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  admit  that  Mr.  White  did  not  know  Mr. 
Browne,  and  that  Mr.  Browne  did  not  know  Mr.  White,  until  they 
were  elected  to  that  session  of  the  legislature. 

Q.  Were  you  solicited  by  Mr.  Browne  to  support  him  for  minority 
leader  of  the  house  as  earlv  as  November,  1908? — A.  I  think  I  was; 
yes,  sir. 

fc).  Did  you  have  frequent  or  a  number  of  meetings  with  Mr. 
Browne,  together  with  other  Democratic  members  of  the  house,  look¬ 
ing  to  his  election  as  minority  leader? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  or  about  the  month  of  January,  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  one  of  his  supporters  in  that  election? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Or  candidacy? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  at  any  time  have  any  talk  with  Lee  O’Neil  Browne, 
the  same  Browne  I  heretofore  referred  to,  with  reference  to  voting 
for  William  Lorimer  for  the  United  States  Senator  ? — A.  ’I  es,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  have  the  first  talk?— A.  On  the  night  of  May 

24,  1909. 

Senator  Burrows.  Witness,  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  hear  any¬ 
thing  vou  say. 

The*  Witness.  On  the  night  of  May  24,  1909. 


40  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Whereabouts? — A.  In  his  room  in  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel, 
Springfield,  Ill. 

Q.  Had  you  been  at  Springfield  and  had  Mr.  Browne  been  at 
Springfield  since  the  opening  of  that  session  the  greater  portion  of 
the  time? — A.  Yes,  sir;  on  legislative  days. 

Q.  During  the  days  they  voted  for  United  States  Senator? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  the  Democratic  candidate  for  United  States  Sen¬ 
ator? — A.  Lawrence  B.  Stringer. 

Q.  Prior  to  your  talk  with  Browne  had  you  or  Browne  voted  for 
a  Republican  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  had  not;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Plad  Browne,  so  far  as  you  know? — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  You  say  you  had  a  talk  with  Mr.  Browne  on  the  night  of  the 
25th  of  May  ? — A.  On  the  night  of  the  24th  of  May. 

Q,  Where  and  at  what  time? — A.  Well,  I  couldn’t  state  exactly 
the  time  when - 

Q.  (Interrupting.)  Approximately,  in  the  evening,  or  night,  or  in 
the  morning? — A.  It  was  in  the  night,  possibly  between  10  and  2; 
I  couldn’t  state  exactly  what  time. 

Q.  Between  your  first  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Browne,  in  November 
or  December,  1908,  and  this  May  24,  1909,  had  you  become  well 
acquainted  with  Mr.  Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  him  both  in  and  out  of  the  House  a  great  deal  ?— 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  committee,  if  you  please,  what  conversation 
you  had  with  Mr.  Browne  on  this  night  of  May  24,  1909? — A.  Mr. 
Browne  asked  me  if  I  could  vote  for  a  Republican,  and  I  told  him 
that  I  could.  He  asked  me  if  I  could  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  and  I 
told  him  that  I  could.  He  told  me  that  was  strictly  “under  my 
hat;”  to  say  nothing  to  anyone  about  it.  I  told  him  all  right;  I 
would  keep  \t  quiet,  ^  I  asked  Mr.  Browne  if  certain  other  members 
were  going  to  vote  for  him,  and  he  said  some  would  and  some  would 
not.  Mr.  Browne  told  me  he  wanted  me  to  keep  it  strictly  “  under 
my  hat.”  He  said  it  would  not  be  any  chicken  feed  either.  That  is 
about  the  substance  of  the  conversation  that  night;  that  is  about  the 
substance  of  the  conversation.  There  might  have  been  something 
more  he  said. 

Q.  The  general  assembly  had  been  voting  in  joint  sessions  for 
United  States  Senator  since  January  19  or  20,  1909,  hadn’t  they? — A. 


Yes  sir. 

Q.  When  you  asked  him  whether  or  not  certain  Democrat  mem¬ 
bers  were  aoing  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  did  you  call  off  the  names  of 
the  members  of  the  house,  or  some  of  the  names  of  the  members  of  the 

house? — A.  I  did.  •  j 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  what  names  you  called  off  and 
what  reply  Mr.  Browne  made  to  your  inquiry? — A.  I  don’t  know 
that  I  can  call  them  all  off  now  exactly,  but  I  remember  asking  him 
about  some  members.  The  minority  was  split  into  two  factions  at 
that  time,  known  as  the  Tibbitt  faction  and  the  Browne  faction. 

Q.  They  were  both  Democratic  factions? — A.  Pes,  sir. 

Q.  You  called  off  the  names  of  some  members  and  to  some  he 
answered  “  Yes  ”  and  to  others  “  No  ?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  41 


Q.  Did  you  have  any  subsequent  talk  with  him,  prior  to  the  time 
f  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  on  the  26th? — A.  I  had  a  talk  with 
im  on  the  afternoon  of  May  25. 

Q.  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected  May  26? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  talk  did  you  have  with  Mr.  Browne  on  May  25,  1909  ? — - 
.  I  went  to  his  room  and  asked  him — he  requested  me  to  come  to  his 
)om  before  I  went  there,  and  I  had  sent  word — I  didn’t  send  word,  I 
ioke  to  Mr.  Giblin,  his  stenographer,  and  asked  Mr.  Giblin  what 
lere  was  in  it,  and  he  told  me  it  looked  pretty  good  to  him,  and  lie 
ent  to  Mr.  Browne - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  the  conversation  with  somebody  else  in 
lation  to  this. 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  is  not  important,  this  particular,  conversation, 
will  withdraw  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  ask  that  it  be  stricken  from  the  record. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  will  go  out  of  the  record — what  Mr.  Giblin 

Id. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  you  remember  of  seeing  Mr.  Browne,  do  you? — A. 
es,  sir. 

Q.  Where? — A.  In  his  room. 

Q.  On  May  25? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  This  was  the  second  talk  on  this  subject  you  had  with  them? — 

,.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  did  you  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  on  May  25? 

Senator  Burrows.  Where  was  his  room? — A.  At  the  St.  Nicholas 
[otel  in  Springfield. 

Q.  The  first  conversation  was  in  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  at  Spring- 
aid,  was  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  Mr.  Browne’s  room  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  when  did  you  first  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United 
tates  Senator? — A.  May  26,  1909. 

Q.  Was  that  the  only  time  you  ever  did  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — 
.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  time  that  Mr.  Lorimer  received  108  votes, 
as  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  was  declared  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate?  [No 
iswer.] 

Q.  This  talk  with  Mr.  Browne  on  May  25,  1909 — will  you  kindly 
atail  to  the  committee  what  that  talk  was? — A.  I  asked  Mr.  Browne 
hat  I  was  to  receive  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer ;  how  much  I  was 

>  get,  and  he  replied  by  saying:  “  You  are  not  afraid  to  trust  that 

>  me,  are  you.  old  boy?  ”  I  told  him  that  I  was  not  afraid  to  trust 
to  him,  but  I  would  like  to  know.  He  says,  “  You  will  get  $1,000 

id  it  is  ready  cash  too.”  He  implored  me  to  keep  it  quiet.  “  He  told 
ie  he  was  damned  suspicious  (I  use  his  exact  language)  of  a  little 
lace  above  called  “Joliet.”  I  told  him  I  would  keep  it  quiet.  lie 
sked  me  to  talk  to  no  one  about  it.  Then  I  asked  him  how  much 
e  were  to  get  from  the  other  source,  and  he  says,  “  You  will  get 
lout  that  much  or  a  little  more.” 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that.  That  will  be  the  principal  pur- 
ose  of  this  prosecution  to  bring  in  other  matters  and  slime  this 
roceeding  over  with  something  that  members  of  the  legislature  said 
i  relation  to  other  matters — a  jack  pot,  etc.,  and  I  object  to  their 


42  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

going  in  and  trying  the  other  members  of  the  legislature  or  the  mem 
bers  of  the  legislature  generally  for  misconduct  in  this  proceeding 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  prepared  to  ask  that  question,  and  I  have  the 
authorities  here,  and  the  law  here,  and  the  rulings  of  the  Senatt 
committee,  and  there  is  no  question  but  what  it  is  admissible;  at  anj 
rate,  it  is  a  part  of  this  conversation. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  matter  was  thrashed  out  on  the  trial  of  Mr 

Browne  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  they  were  admitted. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  have  the  record  and  that  will  show  that  the? 
were  admitted  there.  Counsel  said  they  had  read  it,  but  I  don' 
think  he  has  read  it.  I  am  not  talking  about  the  first  trial. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  said  that  they  were  admitted  at  the  trial  o 

Browne. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  say  they  were  admitted. 

Senator  Burroavs.  it  is  not  material  what  was  held  in  some  othe 
case.  Therefore  discussion  upon  that  point  is  unnecessary. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  state  the  purpose  of  the  testimony  befor 
the  committee  rules? 

Senator  Burroavs.  The  chairman  does  not  think  it  necessary:  w 
think  the  question  is  proper. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  desire  to  argue  anything,  Mr.  Chairman 
after  it  has  been  ruled  upon,  but  I  would  like  to  suggest  reasons,  am 
it  seems  to  me  they  are  conclusive  why  this  should  not  be  heard.  0 
course,  if  the  committee  desires  to  sit  here  and  hear  both  sides  of  a) 
these  questions  that  may  come  up,  all  right,  but  that  is  a  matter  t 

be  determined  by  the  committee.-  _  . 

Senator  Burroavs.  Here  is  a  witness  who  testifies  to  a  certain  offe 
made  to  him  for  his  vote.  During  the  course  of  the  statement  h 
was  about  to  state  that  other  considerations  were  offered. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  AAdiy  I  want  to  be  heard  on  it.  It  is  clea 
cut  and  well  defined,  and  there  is  no  question  about  what  took  plac 
betAveen  him  and  Mr.  Browne.  He  said  he  asked  Mr.  Browne  ho' 
much  he  was  to  get  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  Senator,  and  h 
said  a  thousand  dollars  and  it  would  be  in  cash.  Then  the  witnes 
started  on  to  say,  “  I  asked  him  Iioav  much  I  was  to  get  for  th 
other  matter,  or  from  other  sources.” 

Mr.  Austrian.  Even  if  you  put  it  that  way,  it  would  be  competen 
“  What  will  I  get  from  the  other  matters  or  from  other  sources?  ” 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  not  the  Senatorship  at  all,  but  somethin 
else  that  they  are  trying  to  slime  this  proceeding  OA^er  with. 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  the  Clark  case  they  permitted  them  to  slur 
evidence  of  the  bribery  of  a  justice  of  the  supreme  court  of  Moi 
tana  as  tending  to  prove  corruption,  and  the  L  nited  States  Senal 

ruled  it  was  absolutely  competent. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  in  a  court  of  law  where  the  rules  ai 
strictly  adhered  to  and  Avell  established,  but  does  not  control  her 
I  suppose  that  would  apply  to  an  investigation  by  a  senatorial  c 
congressional  committee  or  any  other  investigating  committee.  Th 
matter  that  they  want  to  go  into  is  what  is  called  a  “jack  pot”  ( 
something  else  that  is  in  no  Avav  connected  with  the  Senatorship,  an 
is  an  attempt  to  slime  and  to  smirch  Senator  Lorimer  by  somethin 
that  took  place  that  has  nothing  to  do  Avith  this  case. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORI MER,  43 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  not  the  purpose. 

Judge  Haxecy.  The  purpose  is  to  put  it  before  this  committee, 
and  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  senatorship. 

Air.  Austrian.  If  I  am  permitted  to  state  the  purpose,  I  will  be 
pleased  to.  The  evidence  will  disclose  that  there  were  certain  Demo¬ 
cratic  members  of  the  house  and  senate  that  entered  into  a  combina¬ 
tion  in  respect  to  this  so-called  bribery  matter,  that  is  the  purpose  of 
it.  A  senate  committee  held  it  was  proper  in  the  Clark  case. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  no  system  here,  notwithstanding  the  re¬ 
narks  of  Brother  Austrian  about  a  “  jack  pot.”  I  submit  that  it  is 
innecessary,  because  a  man  is  charged  with  taking  a  bribe  of  a  thou¬ 
sand  dollars  for  voting  for  another  man  for  United  States  Senator  to 
orove  that  the  man  committed  some  other  offense.  For  instance,  that 
ie  set  fire  to  somebody?s  building  or  his  own  building  for  the  pur- 
oose  of  defrauding  some  insurance  company,  or  committed  murder 
Dr  some  other  offense.  If  that  is  to  be  the  rule  here,  then  there  can 
oe  no  limit  to  it.  It  is  not  competent  and  can  not  be  that  the  other 
natters  had  to  do  with  the  election  of  a  United  States  Senator,  as  Mr. 
Vustrian-savs,  because-some  man  got  money  for  doing  other  things,  and 
:he  system  he  says  was  so  that  they  could  get  money  for  other  things, 
md  the  other  things  have  no  relation  whatever  to  the  senatorship. 
The  senate,  as  a  whole,  is  a  separate  body  created  by  the  Congress 
if  the  United  States  under  the  Federal  Constitution.  It  is  not  a 
egislature.  They  meet  in  a  separate  house,  and  they  never  meet 
in  joint  assembly  except  for  the  election  of  the  United  States  Sena- 
;or.  That  was  determined  in  the  Davidson  and  McCall  case,  where 
he  question  was  gone  into  by  the  best  lawyers  in  the  Senate  and  in  this 
country.  Then  the  law  in  that  question  was  tested  in  the  matter 
if  the  governorship  between  Charles  S.  Deneen,  Republican  candi¬ 
date,  and  Mr.  Stevenson,  the  Democratic  candidate,  and  the  only 
Dodv  that  could  decide  that  contest  for  the  governorship  was  the 
egislature,  and  that  is  the  law.  It  is  made  the  law  by  the  federal 
statute  under  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  there  is  no  other  law  that 
:an  control  it.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  statutes  of  Illinois 
Dr  in  the  state  constitution  about  the  election  of  United  States  Sena- 
or,  and  the  only  body  that  can  elect  is  the  joint  assemblage  created 
dv  the  federal  statute  of  1866. 

It  can  not  be  contended  that  he  did.  When  they  meet  in  joint 
assembly  the  federal  statute  provides  that  they  must  meet  at  2 
a’cloek,  meridian  time,  wherever  it  may  be,  fixing  the  time,  and  says 
that  they  must  take  at  least  one  vote  each  legislative  day  until  a 

Senator  is  elected. 

They  took  one  vote  each  day.  On  a  few  days  they  took  more,  but 
just  as  soon  as  they  took  that  vote  and  adjourned  the  senate  marched 
out  of  the  joint  assembly  to  their  own  room,  and  they  separated  and 
transacted  business.  Now,  will  it  be  contended  by  anybody,  much 
less  a  lawyer,  that  what  the  members  of  the  house  and  the  senate  did 
in  passing  legislation  in  relation  to  Chicago  or  Cairo  or  Galena  or 
Waukegan  or  some  other  place  during  the  separate  recesses  can  be 
grafted  onto  the  proceedings  in  the  general  assembly  and  have  the 
election  of  a  United  States  Senator  and  the  candidates  before  that 
joint  assembly  who  were  running  for  United  States  Senator  charged 
with  what  they  did?  That  is  just  what  this  means  and  it  does  not 
mean  anything  else. 


44  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Now,  if  we  have  got  to  be  smirched  by  that,  why  then  there  is  no 
safety  for  anybody.  All  they  have  to  do  is  to  say,  “  We  are  going  to 
make  charges  against  those  men ;  the  man  who  went  to  the  legislature 
was  a  bad  man;  he  divorced  his  wife,  or  he  murdered  his  wife  or  his 
child,  or  something  else.  Because  that  is  competent  to  show  what 
he  did — I  say,  rather,  that  if  that  is  competent  to  show  what  he  did 
in  the  separate  assembly  rooms  or  the  separate  house,  why  then  it  is 
competent  to  show  what  he  did  at  the  Leland  Hotel  or  to  show  a 
consultation  that  he  had  at  home,  to  show  that  he  took  bribes  or  did 
other  offenses  contrary  to  the  criminal  law,  and  that  is  what  this 
proceeding  is  for  at  this  time,  and  I  submit  nothing  else;  and  there¬ 
fore  I  say  it  should  not  come  in  here. 

Senator  Heyburn.  As  I  understand  it,  you  urge  no  objection  to 
that  part  of  the  question,  that  he  was  to  receive  a  thousand  dollars? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  I  have  no  objection  to  that,  Senator. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Well,  now,  suppose  that  in  the  same  conver¬ 
sation — 

Mr.  Hanecy.  If  in  the  same  conversation  he  stated  that  the  con¬ 
sideration  he  was  to  receive  for  his  vote— -in  that  conversation  he 
stated  he  was  to  receive  a  certain  additional  sum  or  additional 
amount  or  percentage.  Now,  would  that  be  equally  a  part  of  the 
consideration  for  his  vote  as  the  thousand  dollars,  Mr.  Senator?  If 
he  says,  or  if  this  witness  should  swear  here  that  it  was  agreed  that 
he  was  to  be  paid  a  thousand  dollars  for  voting  for  Lorimer  and 
then  was  to  get  a  cow  or  a  horse  in  addition  to  that,  that  he  was  to 
get  some  other  consideration  for  doing  that  thing — not  something 
else — then  it  is  competent  here.  But  unless  it  is  then  it  is  not  com¬ 
petent  here,  I  submit, 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  just  like  to  answer  what  counsel  has  said, 
if  I  may. 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly.  .  .  . 

Mr  Austrian.  Counsel  is  mistaken  in  what  the  law  is  m  this 
State!  as  well  as  in  other  States.  What  the  law  is  has  been  held  by 
the  Senate  committee  of  which  Chairman  BurroAvs  is  a  member. 
The  purpose  of  it  is,  if  you  will  permit  me,  Mr.  Chairman — and  1 
will  not  take  nearly  so  long  as  opposing  counsel  did— the  purpose  ol 
it  is  to  show  that  in  that  legislative  body  that  there  was  general  cor¬ 
ruption,  for  instance,  men  tried  to  bribe  other  men  to  do  certain 
things,  and  corruption  was  rife  at  that  time.  The  object  of  it  is  this 
That  where  you  shoiv  that  there  was  general  corruption  and  systeir 
in  voting  and  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  either  legislative  meas¬ 
ures  or  votes,  Avhy  that  very  act  is  competent  evidence  as  tending  t( 
throAV  liorht  on  the  others.  Why,  in  the  Clark  case  the  charges  Avert 
that  Senator  Clark  had  bought  his  seat  by  bribery.  There  was  per 
mitted  to  be  introduced  in  evidence  the  attempt  to  bribe  a  justice  ol 
the  supreme  court  of  Montana  to  decide  a  case  that  was  then  pending 
before  them,  against  one  of  the  men  who  had  attempted  to  bribe  i 
member  of  the  legislature  to  vote  for  Senator  Clark.  I  think  then 
that  they  did  not  connect  them  with  the  agents  of  Senator  Clark  iV 
all,  but  they  permitted  in  evidence  there  the  attempts  to  bribe  th< 
members  of  the  supreme  court  of  Montana.  Hid  that  have  anything 
to  do  with  bribery  so  far  as  Senator  Clark  Avas  concerned?  _ 

In  passing  upon  that  the  report  of  the  committee  was,  A  majority 
of  the  committee  think  that  the  transactions  connected  with  th< 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  45 

Judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  Montana  needs  consideration.  Pro¬ 
ceedings  having  been  instituted  against  John  B.  Welcome  for  the 
ourpose  of  securing  his  disbarment  for  an  attempted  bribe  in  con¬ 
nection  with  Senator  Clark’s  election.”  It  appears  on  August  5, 
1899,  and  after  a  preliminary  decision  by  the  supreme  court  that  the 
court  had  jurisdiction,  one  Doctor  Trecy  approached  Mr.  Justice 
William  Hunt,  one  of  the  three  members  of  the  supreme  court,  being 
i  family  physician,  bearing  a  proposition  which  he  said  was  from  a 
oarty  in  town,  that  Judge  Hunt  could  have  $100,000  if  the  court 
vould  dismiss  the  proceedings  against  Mr.  Welcome,  and  he  advised 
Judge  Hunt  to  accept  the  amount.  It  was  this  proposition  that  was 
nade.  “  Mr.  Corbett  told  him  he  would  come  over  on  a  special  train, 
md  got  Mr.  McNiel  over  the  telephone,”  and  in  passing  upon  it  they 
say,  “  It  is  contended  that  you  can  not  charge  a  man  with  one  crime, 
md  prove  that  he  committed  that  crime  by  proving  that  he  did  com- 
nit  another  crime.  The  Constitution  provides  that  the  accused  must  be 
informed  of  the  charges  and  the  nature  of  the  accusation.  No  men¬ 
tion  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  Montana  were  made  in  the 
:harges  against  Mr.  Clark.  That  evidence  was  nothing  more  than 
what  lawyers  call  coloring  matter,  and  it  was  admitted  over  the  pro¬ 
test  of  the  Senator  of  Maryland  andothers,  and  in  the  conduct  of  this 
case  there  was  much  other  coloring  matter  received  as  evidence.” 

Now,  that  is  the  theory  of  it.  The  theory  of  it  is  as  laid  down  in 
the  books,  and  I  have  many  decisions  upon  the  point,  and  I  am  pre¬ 
pared  to  present  them  to  this  subcommittee  at  any  time,  to  show 
knowledge,  and  the  nature  of  the  transaction.  A  former  transaction 
of  the  same  general  sort  may  serve  as  indicating  the  understanding 
of  the  transaction  in  question ;  to  show  intent,  another  transaction  of 
that  sort  may  serve  to  negative  good  faith.  To  show  the  design  and 
former  attempt  toward  the  same  thing,  may  be  significant.  I  read 
from  Wigmore  on  Evidence,  which  is  a  standard  work:  “On  a 
charge  of  bribery,  any  of  the  three  general  principles  are  available, 
knowledge,  intent,  and  design.” 

It  was  to  this  committee— I  say  to  this  committee  that  was  part  of 
one  transaction.  It  was  part  of  one  conversation  that  the  evidence 
will  disclose,  that  he  is  one  of  the  coterie  of  men  who  were  bribed  to 
vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  and  if  that  be  the  case,  that  part  of  the  coterie 
of  men  should  all  benefit  by  this  same  transaction  or  other  matters 
from  other  sources. 

Whether  at  that  particular  agreement,  Mr.  Browne  said  to  Mr. 
White,  “  This  shall  be  for  your  influence,  for  the  influence  exercised 
by  you  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer,”  and  we  might  separate  it  men¬ 
tally  if  we  desire,  and  “  This  is  for  voting  for,  and  for  your  influence 
in  voting  for  other  measures;  you  will  get  so  much  more  later;  ”  yet 
the  factor  remains,  whether  we  separate  it  mentally  or  not,  yet  the 
fact  is  that  his  understanding  was,  and  the  only  discussion  they  ever 
had  about  this  entire  transaction  was  that  he  was  to  receive  a  thou¬ 
sand  dollars  from  the  Lorimer  source,  and  as  much  more  from  other 
sources.  That  was  in  reply  to  a  direct  question,  “  What  am  I  to  get 
out  of  it?  ”  and  the  only  subject  of  conversation  at  that  time  between 
White,  if  the  chairman  please,  between  White  and  Brown,  the 
minority  leader,  was  with  reference  to  his  vote  for  Lorimer.  1  hey 
were  not  discussing  the  so-called  “jack  pot”  or  anything  else. 


46  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Hanecy.  May  I  just  suggest  a  difference  between  the  case 
cited  and  the  case  here.  The  bribery  charged  there  was  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  a  member  of  the  legislature  who  had  been  bribed  to  vote  for 
Senator  Clark,  and  being  punished  for  his  act  of  voting  illegally  or 
corruptly  for  him,  and  to  get  that  member  of  the  joint  assembly  out 
of  his  difficulty,  they  were  pursuing  the  same  bribery,  the  same 
bribery  to  effectuate  the  offense ;  namely,  buying  a  seat  in  the  United 
States  Senate.  That  is,  the  first  bribery  was  of  the  member,  and 
then  when  the  member  was  discovered,  he  was  indicted  and  tried, 
and  his  case  pending  before  another  official,  and  so  to  make  that 
purchased  vote  effective,  that  purchased  vote  for  United  States 
Senator  effective,  they  wanted  the  other  official  of  the  judicial  de¬ 
partment  to  release  or  dismiss  the  proceedings  against  that  corrupt 
member  of  the  joint  assembly.  So,  I  say  that  it  is  not  parallel  with 
anything  here.  It  is  not  analogous  to  any  question  that  is  presented 
here. 

The  question  that  is  presented  here  is  a  different  thing  entirely. 
The  jack  pot.  Or  something  that  they  got  for  some  other  things, 
but  not  voting  for  United  States  Senator,  or  to  get  somebody  out 
of  a  difficulty  that  he  got  into  by  voting  corruptly  for  United  States 
Senator,  is  not  before  the  committee.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  the  law 
laid  down  there.  It  is  the  law,  but  that  is  not  parallel  here.  It  does 
not  have  any  relation  to  the  conditions  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  question  put  at  that  time  by 
Senator  Faulkner  was  as  follows:  The  question  is  not  parallel. 
Here's  the  question : 

Did  any  man  ever  offer  you  money  to  vote  for  any  measure  there.  I  am  not 
talking  about  this  bill,  but  any  bill.  Were  you  ever  approached  with  an  offer 
to  bribe  you? 

The  answer  was : 


Yes,  sir;  I  was  approached  with  a  direct  bribe  once. 

What  was  it? 

Senator  Eglestone.  It  was  the  house  bill  174. 

Senator  Eglestone  was  the  editor  of  the  Anaconda  Standard. 


The  Chairman.  You  are  directing  the  witness,  Mr.  Faulkner. 

And  then  said  Mr.  Faulkner  to  Mr.  Gerger : 

The  committee  would  like  to  know  who  were  bribed  or  who  were  attempting 
bribery  of  members  of  the  Montana  legislature,  because  it  may  throw  light  upon 
other  transactions. 

Now,  if  the  committee  pleases,  it  was  a  direct  ruling  in  the  Clark 
case. 

(Committee  confers  privately.) 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  wishes  to  be  excused  for  a 

moment.  .  _  ,  .  , , 

And  thereupon  the  committee  retired  to  another  room  to  hold  a 

conference,  and  upon  their  return  the  following  proceedings  were 

had :  _  . 

Senator  Burroavs.  Mr.  White,  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  tvere 

offered  a  thousand  dollars  for  your  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  Senator 
A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  offered  any  other  consideration  for  your  vote  for  Mr 
Lorimer  for  Senator? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  47 

The  Witness.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  may  be  held  that  I  was  offered  it  in 
lis  way:  I  requested  at  that  time  for  a  further  understanding.  I 
ad  had  no  understanding  up  to  that  time  about  any  of  the  matters 
hatever,  but  I  had  heard  rumors  of  other  matters,  and  I  requested 
[r.  Brown  at  that  time  to  tell  me  or  to  inform  me  what  I  was  to  re¬ 
vive  from  other  sources,  and  as  I  understood  it,  that  was  the  under- 
ending,  that  I  was  to  be  taken  in  on  the  whole  matter  for  voting  for 
[r.  Lorimer.  I  had  not  been  taken  in  or  informed  as  to  any  other 
Latters  up  to  that  time.  It  was  through  the  agreement  I  entered  into 
ith  Mr.  Browne  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  that  I  was  offered  the  other 
msideration. 

Senator  Heyburn.  You  were  offered  a  thousand  dollars  if  you 
ould  vote  for  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  were  you  offered  any  other  consideration? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  told  I  would  receive  about  that  much  or  a  little 

tore  from  the  jack  pot  or  other  sources  later  on,  and  he  stated - 

Q.  For  what  purposes? — A.  Well,  he  did  not  state.  There  was  no 
urpose  at  all.  From  other  sources,  that  is  all. 

Senator  Heyburn.  The  jack  pot  was  divided  among  the  members 
f  the  legislature,  I  suppose,  the  legislative  members? 

A.  I  presumed  so  from  what  I  heard. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  had  relation  to  matters  of  legislation,  had 

1 

• 

A.  I  could  not  say.  I  don’t  know  for  what  purposes  the  money 
as  raised  or  from  what  sources  it  came. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Were  you  to  share  in  the  jack  pot  except  in  the 
rent  you  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? 

A.  I  had  not  heard  of  it  before,  Mr.  Senator.  Well,  I  had  heard 
lat  there  was  money  raised,  but  I  had  not  been  informed  or  taken  in 
i  any  such  proposition. 

Q.  For  what  purposes  had  money  been  raised  that  you  heard  of? — 
.  I  was  told  by  certain  members  that  had  been  there  before  that 
lere  was  a  split  up  at  the  end  of  the  session  and  that  there  had  been 
i  established  precedent. 

Q.  For  what  purposes? — A.  Well,  sir,  I  don’t  know  except  for  the 
rangling  of  legislation  or  killing  of  legislation  or  the  passing  of 
gislation — I  don’t  know.  That  was  the  understanding,  and  Mr. 
rown  did  not  tell  me  from  what  source  the  money  came,  and  we  did 
ot  discuss  that  phase  of  the  question  whatever. 

Q.  Who  distributed  the  jack  pot? — A.  Sir? 

Q.  Who  distributed  the  jack  pot? — A.  I  received  my  money  from 

[r.  Wilson. 

Q.  Who  is  Mr.  AVilson? — A.  A  member  of  the  legislature. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  May  I  suggest  to  ask  Mr.  White  this  question: 
diether  the  jack  pot  covered  both  houses,  or  whether  the  jack  pot 
iferred  to  related  to  the  vote  for  passing  bills  or  for  killing  bills  in 
■e  house  alone,  and  not  to  the  joint  assembly? 

Senator  Burrows.  What  do  you  say  to  that,  Mr.  White? 

A.  Well,  I  could  not  even  say  that  it  was  used  to  kill  bills,  or  to 
ass  legislation,  because  I  have  no  knowledge  of  any  individual  bill 
r  any  matter  that  money  was  put  up  for. 


48  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Hanecy.  What  I  mean  is,  if  the  committee  will  permit  me,  is 
this :  The  jack  pot  you  referred  to  is  the  jack  pot  in  the  house,  and  not 

the  jack  pot  in  the  senate?  .  .  . 

A.  I  don’t  know  of  any  jack  pot  m  the  senate,  and  that  is  the  only 

information  I  had  of  the  jack  pot  in  the  house  for  that  session,  Ji 

heard  of  it  previous. 

Mr.  O’Donnell.  A  previous  session? 

A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  It  was  for  both  houses,  that  you  refer  to? 

A  Yes 

q!  Certainly. — A.  That  is  my— I  don’t  know  from  what  otlie: 
sources  it  came  or  anything  else.  I  merely  asked  Mr.  Brown  what . 

would  receive  from  the  other  sources. 

Senator  Heyburn.  By  that  was  meant  the  jack  pot,  so  called  . 

A.  Yes;  the  so-called  jack  pot.  ,  .  .  ,, 

Senator  Gamble.  You  had  heard  of  the  jack  pot  prior  to  th 

24th  or  25th  of  May,  1909?  .  ,  ,  .  ,  .  • 

A.  Not  the  jack  pot  of  this  session.  I  have  heard  of  jack  pots  l 

the  previous  session,  but  I  asked  Mr.  Brown  about  it,  and  he  was  m 
first  man  I  did  ask  about  the  jack  pot  m  this  session  or  ”  otlie 
sources”  and  I  asked  him  at  the  time  he  approached  me  upon  th 
question  of  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  and  had  offered  me  money  to  d 
made  me  an  offer,  when  he  did  make  me  an  offer,  I  asked  hui 


so,  maae  me  an  unci,  "ucu  ^  ,,  t— .  ,  7  ,  • 

about  the  jack  pot  and  “  the  other  sources,  and  that  went  in  as  pai 

°f  Sena  tor  Burmows.  That  was  the  fund  that  was  devoted  to  the  ma 

teA°tVefhSittwas  generally  understood,  but  I  did  not  know  of  an 
legislation  it  had  been  put  up  for  or  anything  of  that  sort  I  ha 
heard  afterwards  that  there  were  bills— I  had  heard  afterwards* 
bills  that  money  had  been  put  up  for,  and  that  the  governor 

V ^Senator ' Burrows.  Do  you  know  if  this  jack  pot  fund  was  raist 
for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the  election  of  a  Senator  : 

a  X-/-,  cir  •  4  don  t  know  that.  , 

b’  Do"  you  know  whether  any  portion  of  it  was  set  apart  or  d 
voted  to  that  purpose  ?-A.  Well,  I  could  not  say  that,  except  I  w 
offered  $1,000  to  vote 


OYou  were  offered  $1,000  in  cash?-A.  Yes:  I  was  to  re^er 
that,  and  was  told  that  I  was  to  receive  that  much  or  a  little  mo 

later  on  from  the  other  sources. 

O  Later  on  about  other  matters,  did  you  say? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  ;  “  from  other  sources,  he  said. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  from  other  sources. 

Air  Hanecy.  And  you  were  told— if  I  may  be  permitted  t 
the  question— that  he  was  told  he  would  not  get  any  ot  that  un 
three  months  or  more  after  the  session  had  closed  . 

A.  That  is  correct. 

Air.  Austrian.  Three  months.  I 

The  Witness.  I  was  told  it  would  not  be  distributed  until  abc 
three  months  after  the  session  closed;  but  when  Mr.  Brown  pal* 
the  money  here  in  Chicago  on  the  16th  or  lith  of  June,  1909,  he  4i 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  49 

e  at  that  time  that  he  would  be  in  St.  Louis  on  the  15th  of  July  to 
ve  me  about  that  much  or  a  little  more. 

Senator  Gamble.  Did  you  consider  the  promise  of  a  share  in  the 
ck  pot  as  a  part  of  the  sum  that  you  were  to  receive  to  vote  for 
Primer,  and  did  you  vote  because  of  that  promise? 

A.  Well,  it  was  a  part  of  the  entire  agreement,  Mr.  Senator,  but 
do  not  know  that  I  can  say  that  I  considered  it  a  part  of  the  thou- 
nd  dollars,  because  the  thousand  dollars  was  offered  specifically, 
:  id  there  was  uncertainty  as  to  the  other  amount,  except  as  “  as  much 
<•  maybe  a  little  more,”  but  that  was  a  part  of  the  agreement  which, 
other  words,  influenced  my  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer. 

Senator  Gamble.  Did  you  agree  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  for 
1  e  thousand  dollars  that  was  promised  you  ? 

A.  I  told  him  after  he  said  there  would  be  a  thousand  dollars — 
]  fore  I  left  his  room  he  asked  me  if  he  could  depend  upon  me,  and  I 
ild  him  he  could,  that  I  would  vote  for  him. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  You  testified  at  the  first  trial  that  you  would  have 
>ted  for  Senator  Lorimer  on  the  day  you  did  vote  for  him  for  $5  or 
{ 0,  didn’t  you  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  We  have  the  record  here. 

Senator  Gamble.  Mr.  White,  after  you  had  agreed  to  vote  for 
r.  Lorimer  for  the  $1,000,  if  I  understand  the  effect  of  your  testi- 
iony,  then  you  were  curious  to  know  what  interest  you  had  in  the 
.-called  “jack  pot;  ”  is  that  a  fact? 

A.  Well,  I  wanted  to  know,  Senator,  if  I  may  answer  it  this  way, 
wanted  to  know  if  there  was  a  jack  pot  in  the  first  place  at  that 
ission,  and  if  there  was  I  wanted  to  know  if  I  was  to  participate 
it.  I  wanted  to  have  that  information  in  connection  with  the 
;her. 

Senator  Gamble.  So  that,  connected  with  the  promise  of  the 
'ousand  dollars  which  you  were  to  receive  for  voting  for  Senator 
orimer,  was  this  jack  pot,  or  were  you  simply  making  that  inquiry 
1  satisfy  your  curiosity  as  to  the  jack  pot?  Had  that  an  influence 
con  you  in  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer,  or  was  it  a  part  of  the 
j’omise  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer? 

A.  I  had  drawn  no  conclusion  to  that  effect  at  that  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  would  have  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer 
r  the  thousand  dollars,  would  you,  without  any  jack-pot  fund? 

A.  I  might  have. 

Q.  You  know  whether  you  would  or  not.  What  was  the  state  of 
;>ur  mind  at  that  time? — A.  I  acknowledge  I  would  have  done  it. 
Senator  Heyburn.  Didn’t  you  agree  to  do  it  before  there  was  any 
Ik  about  a  jack  pot,  and  after  the  thousand  dollars  was  offered  to 
>u  didn’t  you  agree  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  and  the  jack-pot  ques- 
in  came  m  afterwards? 

A.  The  agreement  was  not  closed.  Mr.  Senator,  until - 

Q.  Didn’t  you  agree,  after  the  offer  of  the  thousand  dollars  was 
ade  to  you — didn’t  you  accept  that,  and  then,  sometime  afterwards, 
;>u  asked  the  question,  as  you  stated  a  moment  ago,  just  as  a  matter 
‘  curiosity,  just  to  know  where  you  were  coming  in  on  the  other 
atter? — A.  The  conversation,  Mr.  Senator,  was  not  closed  with 
ie  understanding  on  that  one  question  of  $1,000,  because  the  con- 
^rsation  continued  there. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 4 


50  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Didn’t  you  agree  at  the  end  of  the  thousand- dollar  offer  to 
vote  for  Lorimer,  and  didn’t  the  conversation  in  regard  to  Joliet 
and  all  of  that  business  come  in  before  there  was  any  talk  of  the 
jack  pot,  as  according  to  the  stenographer’s  notes?— A.  I  don’t 
recall  just  whether - 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  stenographer  read  the  witness  s  testi¬ 
mony  already  given.  . 

The  Witness.  It  may  have  been  at  that  conversation ;  1  don  t  re¬ 
member  verbatim  the  words — 

Mr.  Hanecy.  May  I  suggest  that  the  witness  be  asked  if  he  did 
not  know  that  the  jack  pot  was  made  up  of  money  which  was  paid  in 
by  other  people  who  wanted  legislation  or  who  wanted  legislation 
killed?  That  would  probably  clear  up  the  atmosphere. 

The  Witness.  I  did  understand  that  at  previous  times,  but  that  I 

did  not  know  at  that  time.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Was  it  confined  to  the  house?— A.  that  is  as 
far  as  my  knowledge  of  the  matter  went  the  previous  session. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  It  was  confined  to  the  house  as  far  as  he  was  con¬ 
cerned. 

The  Witness.  As  far  as  my  knowledge. 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  Mr.  Stenographer,  if  you  will  please  read 
the  first  question  in  regard  to  that  conversation 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  conversation  of  May  25. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  On  May  24. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  25th. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  stenographer  read  it. 

(The  stenographer  thereupon  read  from  Mr.  White’s  testimony  as 

follows :) 

This  talk  with  Mr.  Browne  on  May  25,  1909,  will  you  kindly  detail  to  the  com¬ 
mittee  what  that  talk  was  . 

A.  I  asked  Mr.  Browne  what  I  was  going  to  receive  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lon- 
mer — how  much  I  was  going  to  get — and  he  replied,  “  You  are  not  afraid  to 
trust  that  to  me,  are  you,  old  boy?”  I  told  him  that  I  was  not  afiaid  to  trust 
it  to  him,  but  I  would  like  to  know.  He  says,  “You  will  get  $1,000,  and  it  is 
ready  cash,  too.”  He  implored  me  to  keep  it  quiet.  He  told  me  he  was  damned 
suspicious  (I  use  his  exact  language)  of  a  little  place  abo\e,  called  Joliet.  . 
I  told  him  I  would  keep  it  quiet.  He  asked  me  to  talk  to  no  one  about  it.  Then 
I  asked  him  how  much  we  were  to  get  from  the  other  source,  and  he  says, 
«  You  will  get  about  that  much  or  a  little  more.” 

Senator  Gamble.  What  do  you  mean  by  that  expression,  “  Get  as 
much  ” — for  what  purposes  were  you  to  get  as  much  from  other 
sources  ? 

A.  I  made  that  remark  as  the  result  of  a  conversation  that  I  had 
had  with  one  of  the  older  members  that  had  been  there  at  sessions 
previous  to  that,  and  he  had  told  me  that  there  had  been  money  at  the 
close  of  sessions  previous  to  this  session  here.  But  I  had  heard  nothing 
of  money  being  raised  in  this  session  and  I  wanted  to  know  at  that 
time  about  it.  I  wanted  the  information  at  that  time. 

Senator  Gamble.  You  do  not  mean,  then,  by  your  answer  as  to 
how  much  more  you  were  to  get  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  you  did 
not  mean  by  your  inquiry  how  much  more  you  were  to  get  for  voting 
for  Mr.  Lorimer,  did  you?— A.  I  could  not  say  that.  It  was  part  ol 
the  agreement;  that  was  all  the  entire  agreement.  . 

Senator  Johnston.  Did  you  suppose  that  Mr.  Hopkins,  or  his 
friends,  or  Mr.  Springer,  or  Mr.  Lorimer,  or  friends  of  them  hac 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER,  51 

iade  a  contribution  to  the  jack  pot  for  the  purpose  of  buying  mem- 

ers  of  the  legislature  to  vote - A.  I  don't  know  where  it  came  from. 

Q.  Did  you  suppose  it  had  been  done? — A.  No,  sir;  I  didn’t  sup¬ 
pose  that  was  done. 

Q.  You  hardly  thought,  did  you,  that  Mr.  Hopkins  would  make  a 
ontribution  or  Mr.  Springer - 

I  Mr.  Hanecy.  And  Mr.  Foss  and  Mr.  Mason? — A.  No. 

Senator  Johnston.  They  are  the  names? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Yes;  and  Mr.  Webster. 

The  Witness.  I  heard  nothing  relative  to  that,  the  raising  of 
loney  at  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  let  this  testimony,  as  stated 
y  the  witness,  stand  for  the  present.  Have  you  any  further  ques- 
ons,  Mr.  Austrian  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  yes.  I  have  not  nearly  finished  the  examina- 
on  yet.  There  are  other  questions  of  this  witness;  that  is  the 
uestion  you  asked,  I  believe. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  have  you  any  further  questions  to  ask  this 
fitness  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  yes;  many.  I  will  prove  the  payment  of  the 
loney. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  may  I  keep  the  records 
raight  by  moving  now  to  exclude  all  of  this  evidence  in  relation  to 
ie  jack  pot,  so  that  the  committee  may  pass  upon  it  properly  later, 
nd  I  will  not  be  foreclosed  upon  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  we  are  very  glad  you  made  the  suggestion, 
et  it  be  entered  of  record,  and  we  will  decide  that  question  when  we 
jach  it. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  all  of 
le  testimony  of  this  Avitness,  in  relation  to  the  so-called  jack  pot 
lould  be  excluded  or  stricken  out  of  this  record,  and  I  therefore 
iove  that  it  be  stricken  out. 

Senator  Burroa\ts.  You  have  made  the  record  on  that  now.  The 
mimittee  will  take  that  under  consideration,  Judge  Hanecy.  Now, 
in  you  proceed  with  another  line,  Mr.  Austrian  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Certainly,  certainly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  After  this  talk  on  the  evening  of  May  25,  1909 — 
ell,  I  will  withdraw  that  question.  Mr.  White,  have  you  given  the 
hire  conversation  you  had  that  night  in  Lee  O’Neill  Browne’s  room, 
lay  25,  1909? 

A.  Well,  I  don’t  think  it  is  the  entire  conversation,  no. 

Q.  Well,  in  substance  I  mean? — A.  In  substance,  yes. 

Q.  Pertaining  to  this  matter? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  Avhat  took  place  on  the  floor  of  the  joint  session  of 
le  tAvo  houses  on  May  26,  1909  ? — A.  The  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer 
s  Senator  of  the  United  States. 

Q.  Were  you  notified  that  it  would  come  off  on  that  ballot  on  May 
»,  1909? — A.  Yes;  Mr.  Browne  came  over  to  me  and  told  me:  “This 
lines  off  on  the  first  ballot,”  and  asked  me  not  to  forget,  and  I  told 
im,  "All  right,”  and  I  heard  him  tell  some  other  members  in  the 
*ar  of  my  seat,  but  I  didn’t  look  around  at  all,  but  he  told  them  the 
ime  thing. 


52  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  Prior  to  that  time,  Mr.  White,  had  any  Democratic 
members  of  the  house  or  joint  assembly  voted  for  Mr.  W  illiam  Lori- 
mer,  if  you  know? 

A.  Not  to  my  knowledge.  ,  ,  ,T 

Q.  Was  there  more  than  one  ballot  taken  on  that  day,  May  2b, 
1909? — A.  Pardon  me,  just  a  moment,  did  you  ask  me  did  any  Re¬ 
publican.  or  rather  did  they  vote  for  any  Republican  or  just  Mr. 
Lorimer  ? 

Q.  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  No.  _  _  ,. 

Q  I  said  prior  to  the  vote  of  May  26,  1909,  had  any  Democratic 

member  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  leads  me  to  make  a  suggestion.  Can 
counsel  agree  as  to  the  political  affiliation  of  the  members  of  the  joint 

assembly  ? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Yes.  .  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  shown  in  the  senate  and  house  journal. 

Senator  Burrows.  Oh,  it  is  shown? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  If  it  is  not  clearly  shown  then  we  will  agree  upon  it. 
Senator  Burrows.  You  will  do  so. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Yes.  „  _  ,  ,  T  ,, 

Mr.  Austrian.  Whll,  each  member  of  each  house  is  shown  w  hether 


he  is  Republican  or  Democrat. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  when  after  May  26,  1909,  if  you  recall  the  date, 
did  the  house  adjourn,  the  house  of  representatives,  I  mean,  approxi¬ 
mately  the  date?— A.  Well,  I  could  not  recall  the  exact  date;  it  was 
along  in  June ;  I  think  it  was  the  1st  of  June. 

Q.  It  was  in  the  first  part  of  June? — A.  \  es. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  June  4.  ^  ,  ,,  ,  •  ■ 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you,  after  the  adjournment  of  the  house,  write 

anv  letters  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you,  after  the  adjournment  of  the  house,  receive  any  letters 

from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne?— A.  Yes,  sir 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  m  the  city  of  Chicago  theie- 

afQr  After  your  vote  for  William  Lorimer  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909 
did  you  receive  any  part  of  the  money  promised  you  by  Lee  O  iNeiil 

Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir.  .  ^  c 

Q.  Where  first  and  when  first?— A.  I  received  $100  in  Spring¬ 
er  On  or  about  what  date? — A.  That  was  at  the  chj'e.  y  yie  ^'js' 
sion.  or  possibly  a  week  before  that;  then  I  received  $900  in  the 

Briggs  House,  in  the  city  of  Chicago.  _  .  91 

Q.‘ Was  that  one  or  two  payments  m  the  city  of  Chicago.— A. 
Two  payments.  I  received  $50  on  the  night  before  the  morning  that 

I  received  the  $850.  ,  ,  T  o  1000 

Q.  Look  at  the  letter  which  I  now  show  you,  dated  June  J,  Uiv, 

and  state  whether  or  not  you  received  that  letter  from  Mr.  Browne. 


A.  Yes,  sir. 


Q.  Look  at  the  letter  which  I  now  show  you,  dated  June  13,  1909, 
and  state  whether  or  not  you  received  that  communication  from  Lee 

0,’Neill  Browne. — A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

(The  letters  last  above  referred  to  were  handed  to  Mr.  Hanecy.; 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  53 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  think  these  letters  had  better  be  offered  in 
vidence  or  identified  and  marked  by  the  official  stenographer  before 
hey  get  mixed  up. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  Mr.  Senator,  we  shall. 

Senator  Heyburn.  These  should  be  identified  in  the  order  they  are 
•ffered. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Counsel  may  object  to  them. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Even  if  he  does  object,  they  should  be  marked 
or  identification. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Those  letters  are  all  right. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mark  them  Exhibits  1  and  2. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mark  the  exhibits  offered  by  one  side  with 
igures  and  the  exhibits  offered  by  the  other  side  with  letters,  and 
hen  there  will  be  no  confusion. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  we  will  do  so. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  objection,  Judge  Hanecy? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  No;  I  have  no  objection. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  letter  of  June  9  is  dated  at  Ottawa,  Ill.,  June 
),  1909.  Where  did  Mr.  Browne  live?  His  home,  I  mean. 

A.  Ottawa,  Ill.,  as  I  knew  him. 

(Which  two  said  letters  were  marked  Exhibits  1  and  2,  respec- 
ively,  were  read  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and  are  in  the  words  and  figures 
olio  wing,  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  1. — People’s  Exhibit  4  B.  B. — On  letter  head  of  forty-fifth  general  assembly.] 

Ottawa,  III.,  June  9,  1909. 

Ion.  Charles  A.  White,  O' Fallon,  III. 

My  Dear  Charlie:  I  did  not  get  home  until  the  night  of  Monday,  June  7, 
vheu  I  found  your  letter  awaiting  me.  I  wffsli  you  had  spoken  to  me  of  the 
natters  contained  in  your  letter  before  we  left  Springfield.  It  would  have  been 
omparatively  easy  for  me  at  that  time  to  have  advised  with  you  personally 
ind  properly.  It  is  far  from  difficult  now,  and  I  would  hardly  know  what  to 
ay  to  you  without  seeing  you  personally.  In  any  event,  unless  you  would 
•are  to  see  me  before  that  time  by  coming  here  or  meeting  me  in  Chicago,  I 
ixpect  to  see  you  and  have  a  visit  with  you  some  time  within  the  next  two 
veeks.  I  shall  be  only  too  glad  to  advise  with  you  along  the  line  of  the 
natters  referred  to,  and  suggest  anything  that  may  be  appropriate  and  proper, 
foil  know  where  I  stand,  old  man,  and  that  I  will  go  my  length  for  you. 
■should  you  find  it  necessary  to  see  me  before  the  end  of  the  next  two  weeks, 
/ou  had  better  arrange  to  come  to  Chicago  and  meet  me  there.  However,  as 
natters  stand,  and  in  the  way  that  I  am  tied  up  with  business  matters  now, 

would  prefer  to  put  off  the  meeting  for  the  length  of  time  I  have  stated.  I 
vant  you  to  feel  and  realize  that  I  am  as  good  a  friend  as  you  have  in  the 
vorld,  and  that  I  am  not  only  willing  hut  ready  to  do  anything  in  my  power 
’or  you  at  any  time.  My  best  regards  to  you. 

Very  sincerely,  your  friend,  Lee  O’Neill  Browne. 

Exhibit  2. — People’s  Exhibit  5  B.  B. — Written  on  letter  head  of  forty-sixth  general 

assembly.] 

Ottawa,  III.,  June  IS,  9109. 

Frtend  Charles  :  Your  letter  did  not  reach  me  till  too  late  to  do  any  good.  I 
vas  in  Chicago,  but  could  not  have  remained  longer  had  I  got  your  letter.  Got 
lome  here  this  evening  and  am  due  in  court  to-morrow  a.  m.  But  Charlie,  I 
vill  be  in  Chicago  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  and  (this  is  under  your  hat,  though, 
or  I  do  not  want  to  be  bothered  by  every  job  hunter  in  Chicago).  If  you  can 
vait  I’ll  do  my  best  to  see  you.  I’ll  be  at  the  Briggs  when  there. 

In  haste, 


Browne. 


54  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  Gup  of  them  is  written  upon  the  typeviitei  rind 
signed  by  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  and  the  other  is  in  longhand.  I  he 
letter  of  June  13,  1909.  in  whose  hand  writing  is  that,  Mr.  White? 


A.  Mr.  Browne’s. 

Q.  And  signed  bv  him? — A.  Tes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Browne  reach  you;  did  Mr.  Browne  meet  you  m  the 
city  of  Chicago  the  following  Tuesday  or  Wednesday,  Mr.  Wlnte 
He  met  me  here  after  the  receiving  of  that  letter.  I  don  t  know 
the  exact  date  that  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  falls  upon. 

Q.  Assuming  that  the  13th  of  June  falls  on  Sunday  and  the  14th 
of  June  on  Monday  and  the  15th  of  June  on  Tuesday  vhat  da\ 
would  you  say  he  met  you  in  the  city  of  Chicago?— A.  Well,  I  think 
he  met  me  here  on  the  16th.  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Q.  The  16th?—  A.  Yes;  according  to  the  records  I  have; 

Q.  If  I  have  stated  this  accurately,  that  would  be  Wednesday. 

wouldn’t  it?— A.  Yes,  I  think  so.  ... 

Q.  Mr.  White,  state  what  took  place  between  you  and  Lee  G  Neih 
Browne,  what  conversations  you  had  with  reference  to  this  subject- 
matter  when  he  met  you  in  Chicago  on  TV  ednesday,  June  16. _  it 
Wednesday  fell  on  June  16— what  took  place  between  you?— A  \u 
had  a  little  talk  before  we  went  to  his  room.  I  met  him  in  the  lobbj 
of  the  hotel. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  hotel? 

A.  In  the  Briggs  House,  in  Chicago. 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  Chicago? 

A.  Yes ;  and  we  went  to  his  room ;  he  invited  me  to  go  to  his  room 
and  our  conversation  at  first  was  along  the  lines  of  some  entertain 
ment  for  the  evening,  possibly  a  theater  or  something  like  that,  am 
finally  he  decided  to  stay  in  the  evening,  and  he  asked  me  if  I  ha< 
any  money,  and  I  told  him  I  didn’t  have  very  much  money,  that  ■ 

had  a  few"  dollars  in  my  pocket. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  can  not  hear  you. 

A.  I  stated  that  I  had  a  few  dollars  in  my  pocket  and  he  gave  m 
$50.  He  took  the  $50  from  his  pocket  and  gave  it  to  me  and  told  m 
to  come  to  his  room  the  next  morning  and  he  would  give  me  the  re 
mainder  of  the  Lorimer  money.  He  told  me  not  to  go  out  and  spem 
the  $50  that  night.  I  went  to  his  room  the  next  morning  and  h 
gave  me  the  $850,  counted  it  out  in  seventeen  $50  bills,  and  told  m 
that  was  my  Lorimer  money.  That  is  about  the  substance  ot  the  en 
tire  conversation.  It  drifted  along  on  various  lines.  He  told  m 
at  that  time— he  cautioned  me  at  that  time  to  be  careful  about  spend 
ino-  the  money  when  I  got  back  to  my  home  district,  as  to  the  $5 
bifls  ;  and  he  told  me  that  about  the  Toth  of  July  there  would  b 
about  that  much  or  a  little  more  for  me. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  was  that  last  statement  ? 

A.  After  he  gave  me  the  $850  he  cautioned  me  about  being  carefi 
in  spending  the  $50  bills  over  saloon  counters  and  different  plact 
where  it  might  create  suspicion,  and  that  about  the  15th  of  July  thei 
would  be  about  that  much  or  maybe  a  little  more  for  me. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Now,  if  the  chairman  please,  I  move  that  be  stncke 
out  so  as  to  keep  the  record.  That  is  the  jack-pot  question. 

A.  He  told  me  at  that  time - 

Senator  Burrows.  Wait  a  moment,  Mr.  W  ltness.  1  ou  renew  yoi 
motion  to  strike  out? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  55 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Yes;  I  renew  my  motion  to  strike  out,  not  only  in 
iew  of  what  he  said  before  but  what  he  has  just  said  twice,  when  he 
;ot  the  $50  and  then  the  $850. 

Senator  Burrowts.  Your  motion  will  be  entered  and  considered 
7i th  the  other  question  on  the  same  point. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  That  was  the  balance  of  the  Lorimer  money. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  it  please  the  committee,  I  would  like  to  read 
3  you  just  a  paragraph  of  what  Senator  Hoar  said  on  this  very 
abject. 

Senator  Heyburn.  We  will  defer  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  with  reference  to  the  practice  and  you  will 
nd  it  on  page  8. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  are  very  familiar  with  the  record  of  the 
Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  de  bene  esse;  the  committee  hears  the  testi- 
lony  and  they  consider  what  is  competent  and  they  diregard  what 
3  incompetent.  It  is  not  like  a  case  before  a  jury. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  I  do  not  want  to  be  understood - - 

Senator  Burrows.  We  do  not  want  to  cumber  the  record. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  trying  to  be  very  brief,  and  I  am  jumping 
ver  a  great  many  things. 

Senator  Burrows.  Very  well;  proceed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  Mr.  Browne  at  that  time  say  anything  about 
oing  to  any  other  place — just  to  draw  your  attention  to  it? 

A.  I  was  just  preparing  to  answer  that  question.  He  said  that  he 
muld  be  in  St.  Louis  in  a  few  days  to  give  the  southern  Illinois 
lembers  their  Lorimer  money,  and  I  requested  him  to  let  me  know 
hen  he  was  down  there  and  I  would  come  to  St.  Louis  and  see  him, 
ut  he  did  not  let  me  know  when  he  was  down  there,  and  I  never 
new  when  he  reached  there.  That  is  about  the  substance  of  the 
onversation  relative  to  that.  There  was  some  talk  of  other  matters 
aere. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  took  place,  if  anything,  with  reference  to 
ny  money  paid  you  at  Springfield — the  $100  that  you  have  spoken 
bout? 

A.  He  gave  me  a  $100  bill  at  first,  and  I  took  the  money  to  my 
oom,  and  there  were  some  blue-pencil  marks  on  it,  and  so  I  took  the 
ill  back  to  Mr.  Browne  and  I  asked  him  if  the  bill  was  marked,  and 
e  told  me — well,  he  asked  me  to  hand  him  the  bill,  and  I  did  hand 
im  the  bill,  and  he  took  the  bill  to  the  cashier’s  desk  in  the  St. 
Nicholas  Hotel  and  had  it  changed,  and  then  I  walked  with  him  from 
he  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  over  to  the  office  of  the  Illinois  Traction  Com- 
any  and  he  gave  me  the  money  on  the  way  over  there,  in  smaller 
enominations  than  the  $100. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  on  or  about  the  14th  day  of  July,  1909,  did  you 
eceive  a  telegram,  or  did  you  receive  the  telegram  which  I  now  show 
ou,  dated  July  14,  1909,  and  which  I  have  just  had  marked  “  Exhibit 
”  for  identification? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  What  is  the  date  of  it,  Mr.  Austrian  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  July  14,  1909.  Let  the  witness  answer  whether  or 
ot  he  received  it,  and  then  I  will  hand  it  to  you,  Judge  Hanecy. — 
t.  Yes,  sir;  I  received  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  A  little  louder.  We  can  not  hear  you. — A.  I 
ay  yes ;  I  received  it. 


56  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Hanecy  (after  examining  telegram).  I  have  no  objectior 
to  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  as  follows  (reading) : 

[Exhibit  3,  9-25-10.] 

[On  the  telegram  blank  of  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company.] 

No.  A.  Sent  by  R.  S.  Rec’d  by  D.  19  Paid  X. 

Received  at  3.35  p.  m.,  July  14,  1909.  Dated  Chicago,  Ill. 

To  Hon  Chas.  White,  O’Fallon,  Ill. : 

Meet  me  to-morrow  forenoon  without  fail  at  Southern  Hotel,  St.  Louis.  Wir 
me  answer  at  once,  care  Briggs  House,  Chicago. 

.  Robt.  E.  Wilson. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  was  Robert  E.  Wilson?— A.  He  was  a  repre 
sentative,  a  Democratic  representative  from  Chicago. 

Q.  Did  yon  meet  Robert  E.  Wilson  at  St.  Louis  at  the  Souther] 
Hotel  after  the  receipt  of  that  telegram?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Was  he  a  member  of  the  senate  or  the  house? 
Mr.  Austrian.  The  house. 

Q.  Democratic  member  of  the  house,  wasn’t  he?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  meet  him  and  when?— A.  I  met  him  the  ver 
following  morning,  July  15, 1909,  in  the  Southern  Hotel. 

Q.  Pursuant  to  that  request,  did  you?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  a  letter  from  Mr.  Browne,  dated  at  Ottawa 
Ill.,  July  16,  which  I  now  show  you,  being  Exhibit  4.  Did  you  rt 

ceive  that  letter? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  We  have  no  objection  to  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  signed  by  Mr.  Browne?— A.  Yes,  sir. 
(Which  said  letter  last  above  referred  to,  marked  “  Exhibit  < 
9-25-10,”  was  read  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and  the  same  is  in  the  wore 
and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  4.] 

[Letterhead  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  representatives 

Ottawa,  III.,  July  16,  1909. 

Hon.  Charles  A.  White,  O'Fannon,  III. 

Friend  Charlie:  Thank  you  very  much  for  your  prompt  recognition  of  n 
request  in  the  Dovle  matter.  You  have  certainly  been  one  of  my  good  o 
friends  since  we  have  become  acquainted.  I  feel  sure  that  the  friendship  w 
last  just  as  Ions  as  you  and  I  do.  I  was  awfully  sorry  that  I  was  unable 
be  with  you  yesterday  forenoon  in  St.  Louis.  I  was  taken  very  ill  in  Chica; 
Monday  night  with  an  attack  of  ptomaine  poisoning  and  have  had  a  pret 
serious  time  of  it.  I  did  not  dare  to  attempt  the  trip.  I  hope  everything 
all  right  with  you  and  satisfactory  and  that  you  are  happy  and  fairly  yv( 
perous  I  hope  before  very  long  to  be  able  to  meet  you  either  in  St.  Louis 
Chicago  and  talk  over  old  times.  I  think  you  and  I  have  got  one  real  go< 
visit  coming.  Let  me  hear  from  you  when  you  get  time  and  the  spirit  mov 

y°U’  Very  sincerely,  your  friend,  Fee  O’Neil  Browne. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  White,  when  you  went  to  St.  Louis  on  Ju 
15,  1909,  in  response  to  the  telegram  sent  to  you  by  Mr.  Wilson,  wl 
else  did  you  meet  there— I  mean  connected  with  the  legislature  t 
A.  Mr.  Austrian,  I  would  not  say  but  the  telegram  was  sent  1 
Mr.  Wilson.  I  received  it  as  signed  by  him.  # 

Q.  Well,  the  telegram  marked  “Wilson”  or  signed  Wilson 
what  I  mean.— A.  Upon  entering  the  lobby  of  the  Southern  Hotel 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  57 

7e  11,  before  I  reached  the  Southern  Hotel,  on  the  way  down,  I  met 

Representative  Beckemeyer  on  Broadway,  at  the  corner  of - 

Mr.  Hanecy.  I  object.  If  the  chairman  and  the  committee  please, 
his  is  the  jack-pot  question. 

Senator  Gamble.  He  simply  testifies  that  he  met  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  Representative  Beckemeyer  live  in  St.  Louis  ? — * 
l.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  he  live  ? — A.  Carlyle,  Ill. 

Q.  Who  else,  if  you  please? — A.  Well,  I  met  Representative  Becke- 
aeyer  at  the  corner  of  Broadway  and  Olive  street.  I  met,  upon 
eadiing  the  hotel,  when  I  entered  the  lobby,  I  met  Representative 
oseph  Clark. 

Q.  Where  does  he  live? — A.  He  lives  at  Yandalia,  Ill. 

Q.  Was  he  a  Democratic  member  of  the  house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  else? — A.  I  met  Representative  Charlie  Luke? 

Q.  Where  did  he  live? — A.  He  lived  in  Nashville,  Ill.  I  met  Rep- 
esentative  Harry  Sheppard. 

Q.  Is  that  Sheppard  not  Mr.  Henry  A.  Sheppard? — A.  Henry  A., 
presume,  is  right. 

Q.  Was  he  a  Democratic  member  of  the  house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  he  live? — A.  Jersey ville,  Ill.  Shortly  afterward  I 
let  Representative  Robert  E.  Wilson,  Representative  Michael  Link, 
n  Mr.  Wilson’s  room. 

Q.  At  the  Southern  Hotel? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  Michael  Link  a  Democratic  representative? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  A  member  of  the  house  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  he  live? — A.  Mitchell,  Ill.,  on  a  farm  near  Mitchell. 
Q.  Robert  E.  Wilson  was  a  Democratic  member  of  the  house  from 
Chicago,  was  he  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  what  took  place  when  you  met  Mr.  Wilson,  when  you 
net  him  in  the  Southern  Hotel  that  date. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  If  the  chairman  please,  that  is  the  jack-pot  ques- 
ion,  and  I  object. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  does  not  yet  appear. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  They  will  admit  it,  and  there  is  no  question  about  it. 
Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  admit  that  he  got  the  $900  from  Robert  E. 
Vilson  in  the  bath  room  of  that  hotel  that  day,  and  it  is  the  $900 
ie  referred  to  in  the  conversation  that  he  had  with  Lee  O’Neil 
Browne. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Well  it  is  the  same  jack-pot  question.  He  testified 
ie  got  all  of  his  Lorimer  money.  He  testified  that  he  was  paid  $50 
lere  in  Chicago,  that  he  got  $50  here  in  Chicago,  and  he  testified  that 
ie  got  $850  the  next  day,  and  he  said  that  it  was  the  balance  of  the 
x>rimer  money.  It  is  conceded  now  that  this  is  the  jack-pot,  and 
mless  we  are  investigating  here  merely  for  notoriety,  or  to  go  into 
natters  not  involved  or  connected  with  the  matter  merely  for  news¬ 
paper  notoriety  or  some  other  purpose,  it  seems  to  me  it  is  not  proper 
o  go  into  it. 

Senator  Gamble.  It  discloses  what  this  refers  to.  Isn’t  your  ob- 
ection  a  little  premature  unless  it  is  conceded? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  It  is  conceded. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  chair  does  not  so  understand. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  concede  it.  All  that  I  conceded  is  that 
•.Robert  E.  Wilson  paid  him  $900  and  that  is  the  same  $900  that,  in 


58  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

my  opinion,  was  referred  to  in  the  talk  he  had  with  Browne  when 
Browne  said,  “  You  will  get  $1,000  now  and  $900  later  from  other 
sources.'’  That  is  all  one  conversation. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Well,  this  is  the  jack-pot  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  call  it  a  jack  pot.  It  doesn  t  make  any 
difference  what  you  may  call  it.  The  agreement  was  made  that  he 
was  to  get  $1,000  now  and  $900  later  on  from  other  sources.  He  says 
that  was  the  agreement. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge  Hanecy,  you  are  asking  what  he  testified 

to.  be  stricken  out. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Right  this  morning. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  part  of  the  testimony? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute,  please. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  objecting. 

Senator  Burrows.  Where  was  that  testified  to  by  Mr.  \\  lute,  if 
you  remember,  Mr  Austrian  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Some  time  this  morning. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  part  of  the  testimony  ?  .  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  can  have  my  reporter,  Mr.  Eulass,  turn  to  it  in  a 

moment.  .  , 

Senator  Burrows.  I  don't  recall  there  was  any  such  testimony 

offered.  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  Senator, ( you  will  find  it  that  way. 

The  Witness.  The  specific  amount  was  not  mentioned. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  he  said  about  the  same  amount  from  other 

sources. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  mentioned  a  specific  amount. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  referred  to  the  agreement  that  was  made. 
Senator  Heyburn.  "Well,  we  refer  now  to  the  con\ersation  of 
Lee  O’Neil  Browne  that  the  witness  alluded  to,  and  in  reference  to 
which  we  held  a  discussion  in  the  early  part  of  the  dai ,  and  I  do, 
not  think  that  there  was  any  $900  mentioned  as  you  say,  Mr. 

Austrian.  „ 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  he  said,  “  About  the  same  amount. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Well,  it  is  right  there;  we  have  had  the  stenog¬ 
rapher  read  it  three  or  four  times. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  did  not  know  that  you  referred  to  the  amount, 
the  specific  amount,  Senator.  I  thought  you  refered  to  m}  use  of  the 
word  “  agreement." 

Senator  Heyburn.  No;  I  referred  to  the  amount  you  stated— 
$900.  It  might  have  been  $900  or  it  might  have  been  $600. 

T  Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  I  am  frank  to  admit  that  Mr.  Browne  didn  i 
say  “  $900.”  He  said,  “  About  the  same  amount  later  on.” 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  thal 
there  is  no  proper  legal  way  that  this  could  be  gone  into  bi  an  hu  es 
titration  nor  any  other  way,  in  view  of  all  of  the  testimony  of  thi. 
witness,  before  the  committee  retired  to  confer  on  the  objections 
made  as  to  the  admissibility  of  the  testimony,  and  m  view  of  tn< 
direct  testimony  of  this  witness  later,  which  is  as  plain  and  specih< 
as  the  English  language  can  make  it 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  seems  to  me— I  beg  your  pardon -  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  said  that  he  was  paid  the  balance  of  the  Lon 
mer  money  in  Chicago  on  the  16th  of  the  month.  Now,  the  pay  men 
of  other  money  for  whatever  purposes  or  conversations,  or  the  trans 


Investigation  of  charges  against  william  lorimer.  59 

btions  in  St.  Louis  at  a  later  date  for  whatever  purpose,  can  have 
3  relation  to  or  bearing  upon  the  question  that  is  now  presented  here 
jfore  this  committee  for  investigation — namely,  the  bribery  or  cor- 
ipt  practices  in  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer. 

This  witness  himself  has  fixed  it,  and  there  is  no  possible  way  from 
liich  it  can  be  fairly  inferred  by  anybody  that  he  has  not  told  the 
*uth. 

Of  course,  we  may  show  later  on — and  I  will  convince  anybody — • 
lat  he  has  not  told  the  truth,  but  that  goes  to  the  entire  testimony  of 
lis  witness,  and  would  be  a  stronger  reason  why  he  should  not  be 
emitted  to  go  into  other  speculative  fields. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  the  objection  is  made  on  the  ground  of  saving 
me,  I  assure  the  committee  that  the  testimonv  would  not  have  taken 
ilf  as  much  time  as  the  argument  has  taken. 

If  he  bases  his  argument  on  the  fact,  as  he  says,  that  it  is  for  news- 
iper  notoriety,  why,  I  will  say  to  the  committee  that  this  is  no  new 
ibject  in  Chicago.  It  has  been  printed  in  the  papers,  and  we  are 
3t  looking  for  newspaper  notoriety. 

If  it  is  made  a  legal  objection,  what  I  ask  the  committee  to  do 
to  permit  me  to  read  the  law  books  and  the  rulings  of  the  Senate 
nnmittee.  I  say  it  is  absolutely  competent,  and  it  has  been  so  held 
v  the  Senate  committees  and  the  books  are  full  of  cases  upon  this 
oint. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  committee,  of  course,  will  be  its  own  guide 
a  these  matters. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  I  am  sure  the  committee  is  looking  for  all 
le  light  it  can  get. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  dealing  with  this  particular  question  now 
ad  it  seems  to  me  it  is  a  question  of  a  great  deal  of  importance,  not 
lerely  to  the  committee  alone,  although  that  is  the  first  considera- 
on,  but  Senator  Lorimer  and  those  that  he  represents  here  in  this 
tate,  that  in  the  high  office  he  holds,  he  should  not  be  permitted  to 
e  besmirched  unnecessarily  by  the  conclusion  or  opinion  of  a  witness 
ho  admits  that  his  testimony  was  purchased,  or  bv  things  which  are 
1  no  way  connected  with  the  charges  presented  here.  If  this  is  per- 
i  it  ted  to  go  in,  then  anything  that  anybody  wants  to  present  here  in 
dation  to  any  member  of  the  legislature  in  any  other  transactions  of 
leirs  or  their  ramifications  in  St.  Louis,  Illinois,  or  any  other  place 
ould  be  equally  competent. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  correct  one  statement 
rhich  counsel  has  made  to  you  several  times.  This  witness  does  not 
dmit  that  his  testimony  was  purchased  as  it  is  stated.  Has  any- 
ody  stated  that  it  was  purchased?  I  deny  emphatically  that  his 
‘stimony  was  purchased.  And  let  it  be  understood  right  now  that 
lere  is  an  issue  between  us  on  that  subject. 

Senator  Paynter.  What  is  the  last  question  to  which  objection 
as  been  made? 

(Question  read.) 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  I  understood  you  to  state  that 
ou  proposed  to  show  by  Mr.  White  in  this  transaction,  that  the 
loney  paid  at  that  time  was  the  money  derived  from  the  so-called 

ick  pot. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  no  notice  or  knowledge  from  what  source 
t  came.  It  was  my  understanding  that  he  received  $900  in  St. 


60  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Louis  on  that  day,  July  15  or  16,  and  that  I 

money  that  Browne  referred  to  m  the  conversation  m  Springfield, 
whenhe  said,  “  You  will  get  about  as  much  more  from  other  sources.’* 
That  is  my  theory  and  it  is  my  understanding. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  it  was  the  fund  “From  other  sources' 
Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  that  is  my  understanding. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  have  not  read  the  newspapers  completely 
Was  there  a  fund  in  addition  to  the  jack-pot  fund,  so-called? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  not  that  I  know  of,  sir;  except  what  was  callec 
the  “  Lorimer  money.”  I  never  heard  of  any  other. 

Judge  TIanecy.  Those  are  the  two— the  only  two  that  are  mvolvec 
here— and  they  want  to  bring  in  the  jack-pot  money  as  well  as  th( 
Lorimer  money.  That  leads  to  a  trial  of  the  different  tiansactions 
Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  upon  the  theory  that  there  was  general  cor 
ruption  there  and  that  general  corruption  was  present  in  the  legis 
lature  at  that  session  or  that  the  legislature  at  that  session  was  cor 
rupt  is  competent  evidence  here. 

I  will  connect  each  one  to  the  other.  I  will  connect  each  one  i\h< 
shared  in  the  corruption  fund  as  a  part  and  party  of  the  other  cor 
ruption  fund  of  the  so-called  Lorimer  money  matter.  I  will  connec 
each  member  who  is  connected  with  that  matter  with  the  other  one 
Senator  Burrows.  From  your  statement  this  morning,  and  wha 
you  say  now,  you  want  to  prove  that  the  members  of  the  legislatin' 
who  were  purchased  for  Lorimer  were  corrupt  in  othei  piactices. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes.  ,  „  ,  . 

Senator  Paynter.  To  show  the  general  corruption  ot  the  legis 

lature?  ,  »  , ,  , x 

Mr  Austrian.  Yes.  It  was  done  m  every  one  of  the  other  cases 

Senator  Johnston.  That  is  the  theory  upon  which  you  predicat 

the  right  to  introduce  this  testimony  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is,  the  other  members  of  the  legislature  wei 

purchased  by  other  parties?  _ 

Mr.  Austrian.  No.  Most  of  them  by  the  same  man,  Biowne. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Not  by  Lorimer? 

Mr  Austrian.  It  is  immaterial  whether  it  was  by  Lorimer  or  no 
Judge  Hanecy.  Not  by  Lorimer’s  friends?  .  _  .  T  , 

Mr  Austrian.  Why,  Lorimer  may  have  been  m  the  Ionia  lsl( 
or  anywhere  else,  and  it  does  not  affect  this  question  at  all.  Lorimc 
may  have  been  deaf,  dumb,  and  blind  while  this  was  going  on,  and 
does  not  affect  this  question  at  all.  This  question  is:  TVeie  a  su 
ficient  number  of  votes  secured  by  corrupt  practices  and  cornq 
methods  to  carry  the  majority  which  was  in  the  Illinois  geneu 

assembly?  ”  And  that  is  the  law. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  susceptible  of  direct  proof. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  it  is  not  susceptible  of  direct  proof  because  tl 
committee  has  frequently  held  you  can  not  get  bribers  to  admit  the 
were  bribed,  so  you  have  to  prove  it  by  contingent  and  surrounds 

circumstances  and  conditions.  • 

Senator  Burrows.  Gentlemen,  the  hour  has  arrived  for  a  recess,  ai 

the  committee  will  take  a  recess  until  2  o  clock  p.  m. 

(Whereupon  at  12:30  p.  m.  a  recess  was  taken  until  2  o’clock  p.  i 

of  the  same  day,  Monday,  September  25,  1910.) 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  61 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Monday,  September  26,  1910. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  recess  and  the  following  further 
[oceedings  were  had: 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  understands  that  the  purpose  for 
lich  this  testimony  is  offered  is  to  show  the  money  received  from 

<  her  sources,  that  is  the  proposition  on  the  testimony  of  this  witness. 
Mr.  Austrian.  In  the  language  of  the  witness;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  hear  you  upon  that  question, 

,  to  the  admissibility  of  such  testimony,  and  will  hear  you,  Judge 
lanecy,  in  reply.  How  much  time  do  you  want? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  whatever  time  vou  fix. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  will  be  agreeable  to  you? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  probably  thirty  minutes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  that  be  agreeable  to  you,  Judge  Hanecy  ? 
Judge  Hanecy.  Entirely. 

Senator  Burrows.  Then,  that  will  be  understood. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  would  be  very  glad  to  hear  you  on  the  ques- 
>n — I  suppose  it  is  connected  anyway  with  the  question  you  will 

<  scuss — as  to  the  admissibility  of  testimony,  for  instance,  that  mem- 
rs  of  the  legislature  were  bought,  paid  money  in  connection  with 
her  legislation  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  General  corruption? 

Senator  Paynter.  Yes.  And  to  show  how  Senator  Lorimer  could 
1  held  responsible  for  such  a  transaction  as  that.  I  would  be  very 
lid  to  hear  you  upon  that  question,  and  you  may  discuss  it  in  con- 
ction  with  the  other.  The  other  members  of  the  committee  may 
’  t  agree  with  me,  but  I  would  like  to  hear  that  question  discussed. 
Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  like  to  hear  some  consideration  given 
t  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  fund. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  origin  of  the  fund? 

Senator  Bulkeley.  Or  any  other  fund — any  fund  that  is  con- 
rcted  with  this  transaction. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  can  not  say  what  the  origin  of  the  fund  is. 
Senator  Heyburn.  I  think  that  you  can  give  us  some  light  on  it  if 
yu.  have  any  suggestions.  I  made  the  suggestion  thinking  you 
right  have  some  suggestion  to  make. 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  starting,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the 
<mmittee,  in  the  Clark  case,  which  is  the  first  case  I  desire  to  refer 
1,  the  question  was  put  to  some  of  the  witnesses  with  reference  to 
rher  corruption — I  am  referring  now  to  the  question  I  referred  to 
tis  morning — this  question  was  put: 

[  remember  Mr.  Bywater  and  I  bad  one  talk  after  the  bill  had  passed  the 
1st  time;  I  do  not  remember  that  we  had  a  talk  before  the  first  passage  of 
t?  bill;  I  remember  he  and  I  talking  about  it,  and  he  spoke  about  it  being 
’ted,  that  he  should  not  do  wrong  in  voting  ns  he  did,  but  that  he  could  not 
H  it,  that  he  was  going  to  vote  as  he  had  before. 

T  Senator  Caffrey,  did  anybody  ever  approach  you,  either  before  or  after 
t»  passage  of  this  bill,  to  vote  for  or  against  it? 

Senator  Caffrey.  Yes;  offered  you  money  for  the  same — these  two  bills, 
t»  contract  having  been  pending  at  the  time  this  envelope  was  thrown  into 
jnr  room — did  anybody  ever  approach  you  with  any  offer  of  money  to  vote  for 
1  against  those  bills  or  either  of  them? 


62  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Then  they  go  on  as  they  had -  . 

Senator  Paynter.  With  reference  to  payments  being  made. 

]\fr.  Austrian.  I  will  get  at  that.  Senator,  just  as  quickly  as  I  can. 
Just  excuse  me.  Then  they  undertook  to  sIioy  that  certain  moneys 
had  been  paid  for  the  passing  of  certain  legislative  measures.  In 
that  connection  they  undertook  to  prove  that  certain  offers  had  been 
made  to  the  members  of  the  legislature  to  pay  for  certain  measures, 
certain  offers  had  been  made  to  vote  for  Senator  Clark  for  United 
States  Senator,  and  then  showed  certain  offers  made  and  which  had 
been  accepted  as  to  other  legislative  measures  of  that  kind.  In 
passing  upon  that,  Senator  Hoar,  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  or 
Privileges  and  Elections,  said: 


If  I  may  be  allowed  one  suggestion.  We  have  bad,  I  suppose,  no  taking  oi 
testimony  before  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  for  a  good  rnanj 
vpars  i  do  not  remember  that  there  had  an  instance  happened  since  any  mem 
her  of  the  committee  except  myself  came  into  the  Senate.  If  I  am  not  mistaken 
sneaking  cautiously— I  think  I  am  not  mistaken— we  invariably  held  that  tb« 
only  possible  way  in  thus  dealing  with  questions  of  this  kind  was  to  receive  th. 
evidence  de  bene*  and  in  the  final  determination  of  the  cause  determine  the  com 
petency  and  relevancy  and  weight  of  the  testimony,  as  otherwise  we  should  male 
the  hearing  of  enormous  length  in  order  to  have  every  question  of  this  sort  deter 
mined  as  we  go  along.  We  have  a  committee  of  lawyers  and  we  are  to  report  fi 
a  Senate  largely  composed  of  lawyers.  In  doing  that  we  always  looked  out  fo 
the  rights  of  a  party  who  is  defending  himself  against  such  evidence,  and  if  i 
became  a  question  whether  the  party  thought  he  wanted  to  attack  evidence  1 
it  was  to  be  considered,  but  did  not  want  to  trouble  himself  to  bnng  evidenc 
to  meet  it  if  it  was  to  be  rejected,  when  any  particular  question  of  that  km 
came  up  we  dealt  with  it  in  a  practical  way.  We  are  not  a  jury. 


And  the  evidence  was  admitted.  The  theory  of  this,  Mr.  Chaii 
man  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee- 


an  ana  uuniitriiicii  — ~~~ 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  do  not  read,  “The  evidence  was  admitted' 
Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  I  read  that— not  from  the  record. 

Judge  Haneoy.  You  were  quoting  and  read  that  after  the  quota 

tl°Mr.t  Austrian.  I  will  read  from  page  948  of  the  record.  I  did  nc 
read  that  u  the  evidence  was  admitted as  a  quotation.  On  pag 
948  of  the  Clark  record,  which  I  have  here,  and  I  am  now  quoting: 


The  committee  would  like  to  know  who  were  bribing  or  attempting  to  bril 
members  of  the  Montana  legislature,  because  it  may  possibly  ha^e  been  used 
connection  with  the  senatorial  campaign  a  jeai  ago. 


Thev  went  back  even  a  year  before  Senator  Clark  was  elected  ft 
the  purpose  of  showing  what,  if  any,  general  corruption  was  m  tl 
legislature  at  that  time.  The  theory  of  it  being  as  follows.  M 
assistant  calls  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  is  something  eb 
here  that  I  would  like  to  read : 


Senator  Tubley.  Did  any  man  ever  offer  you  money  to  vote  for '  any  measu 
there?  I  am  not  talking  about  this  particular  bill,  but  any  bill.  Mere  y< 

ever  approached  with  an  ofter  to  bribe  you? 

Mr.  Geiger.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  approached  with  a  direct  bribe  once. 


Vnd  the  whole  Clark  record  teems  with  that  character  and  quail 
of  evidence  for  this  reason,  as  outlined  in  the  various  rulings  of  tl 
subcommittee  at  that  time,  the  theory  being  this :  That  where  gener 
corruption  is  rife,  where  parties  in  the  legislature  are  dealing  cc 
ruptlv,  it  tends  to  throw  light  upon  the  system  in  vogue;  that 
was  there  a  general  system  in  vogue  by  which  legislators  and  men 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  63 

ers  of  the  legislature  became  purchasable  commodities?  That  is  the 
leory  of  it.  General  corruption  rife,  it  elucidates  and  throws  light 
pon  the  various  phases;  for  instance,  in  the  matter  of  Browne,  it 
ill  throw  light  upon  the  talk  that  White  had  with  other  members 
£  the  legislature,  as  you  will  see  in  a  few  minutes ;  for  instance,  the  evi- 
ence  will  disclose  that  one  member  of  the  legislature,  the  very  night 
lat  White  talked  to  Browne,  a  man  who  had  proposed  as  a  nominee 
le  only  Democratic  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate,  Luke — 
iuke  nominated  Lawrence  E.  Stringer  for  United  States  Senator — - 
uke  was  the  man  who  voted  for  him  almost  continuously ;  this  same 
lan  Luke  the  very  night  that  Browne  had  the  deal  with  White 
iscussed  this  very  thing — general  corruption.  The  purchaseable 
orimer  vote  that  was  had  and  those  members  of  the  legislature,  if 
le  committee  please,  that  were  in  this  combination  to  accept  money 
id  vote  for  the  United  States  Senator  were  all  parties  to  the  jack 
ot.  Of  course,  it  is  upon  the  theory  that  a  system,  a  general  cor- 
iption  system,  because  men  avIio  were  corrupted  on  legislative  mat- 
rs  in  the  Illinois  legislature  were  men  who  were  in  this  deal,  and 
ly  evidence  that  shows  they  were  apt  to  enter  into  a  conspiracy  at 
lis  time,  if  I  am  permitted  to  show  it,  those  men  who  never  have 
sen  charged  with  crime  before,  the  rule  of  law  is,  that  for  the  pur- 
ise  of  establishing  intent  in  a  bribery  case — because  bribery  is  one 
-  those  crimes  to  which  there  are  only  usually  two  parties  and  the 
lyment  of  money  from  one  party  to  another  is  by  the  briber  to  the 
fibee — and  unless  one  or  two  witnesses  can  do  "it  you  never  can 
rove  it  by  direct  evidence.  Therefore,  bribery  is  an  exception  to 
ie  rule,  for  the  reason  that  bribery  can  only  beinferred  and  proved 
7  circumstantial  and  not  direct  evidence;  because  men  are  loath  to 
>nfess  that  they  were  bribed  or  committed  a  crime.  It  is  not  where 
)u  can  prove  that  a  man  did  any  specific  thing  on  a  certain  night, 

•  that  a  murder  was  committed,  or  that  any  crime  was  committed, 
it  it  is  as  a  rule  where  two  men  enter  into  a  contract  between  them- 
lves,  and  hence,  as  you  will  see,  when  you  come  to  consider  and  to 
ad  the  cases  of  bribery  that  bribery  is  an  exception  to  the  general 
ile,  and  anything  tending  to  show  the  circumstances  of  corrupt 
'actices  and  using  of  other  means  for  the  purpose  of  accomplish - 
g  a  thing,  anything  that  tends  to  elucidate  or  tends  to  make  it 
oparent  or  probable  that  money  was  passed  for  certain  corrupt 
irposes,  is  admissible.  For  instance,  Browne  might  contend  that 
l  made  White  a  present  of  money,  $1,000  and  the  subsequent  $900. 
bite  may  contend  that  it  was  paid  to  him  for  the  corrupt  purposes 
dicated  by  his  testimony.  Here  the  only  two  men  present  are 
hit©  and  Browne,  and  the  intent  of  the  "law  is  to  enlighten  the 
■mmittee  upon  that  question.  Anything  more  than  the  "fact  that 
rowne  was  not  only  buying  other  votes,  but  paying  money  for  the 
issage  of  other  corrupt  measures,  it  is  inconceivable  that  any  evi¬ 
nce  would  throw  as  much  light  upon  that  transaction  as  to  show 
at  when  Luke  and  Link  and  Beckemeyer  and  Wilson  combined, 
id  that  those  men  are  the  same  men  that  were  paid  a  thousand  dollars ; 
xewise,  they  were  the  same  men  who  entered  into  the  corrupt  jack-pot 
I  call  it  u  jack  pot  5  because  that  is  how  it  has  been  termed 
*re — the  very  men  who  were  connected  with  this  transaction,  and  who 
)t  money,  and  met  at  the  same  place  that  Browne  indicated  they 


64  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


were  to  meet  to  get  the  Lorimer  money,  and  met  there  in  June  at  the 
St  Nicholas  Hotel  in  St.  Louis;  they  met  there  again  at  that  hotel 
in  order  to  carry  out  the  other  part  of  the  transaction.  Now  as 
Spnator  Hoar  said  “  You  gentlemen  sitting  here  are  not  a  jury.  You 
talnT  the  testimony  for  what  it  is  worth.  You  hear  it  like  testimony 
de  bene,  and  you  then,  having  heard  the  testimony,  determine  that 
it  has  not  been  connected  at  all,  that  it  does  not  throw  an}  ligh  upon 

the  Lorimer  transaction;  you  disregard  it.  ,  . 

Now  I  will  say  to  you  with  reference  to  the  jack  pot,  that  subject 
has  been  held  up" to  you  as  one  going  to  take  a  lot  of  time.  It  is  not 
going  to  take  a  lot  of  time.  There  will  be  nothing  more  shown  than 
one  or  two  very  brief  conversations  with  reference  to  the  jack  pot; 
it  is  the  meeting  of  men  in  certain  places  or  in  a  certain  place  and  the 
nay  merit  of  money,  and  no  conversation  about  it.  .  . 

Now  the  courts  of  a  number  of  States  have  held  that  this  testimony 
is  competent.  And  I  am  not  going  to  attempt  to  read  the  cases  to  you 
at  length,  because  the  committee  has  asked  me  to  limit  my  statement 
to  thirty  minutes,  and  I  will  make  that  as  much  briefer  as  I  can. 

In  State  v.  Snetzler,  reported  in  the  Seventy-ninth  Southwestern 
Reporter,  page  1123,  a  decision  of  the  supreme  court  of  Missouri,  de¬ 
cided  on  March  1,  1904— and  I  read  from  the  syllabus—that  on  a 
prosecution  for  the  acceptance  of  a  bribe  to  vote  for  a  bill  by  the 
member  of  a  municipal  legislative  body,  and  it  appearing  that  there 
was  a  combination  in  the  body  between  various  members,  including 
the  defendant,  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  others  and  receiving  i 
monev  consideration  for  the  passage  or  defeat  of  certain  measure, 
which  might  be  otherwise  passed  or  defeated ;  held,  that  it  was  propel 
To  admit  evidence  that  the  defendant  had  received  another  bnbe- 
that  is,  a  bribe  different  than  the  one  he  was  accused  of  having  re 

ceived,  and  buying 


Judge  Hanecy.  What  was  the  charge  there?  # 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  indictment  was  for  receiving  a  bribe. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Conspiracy? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  it  was  not  conspiracy. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Not  at  all  conspiracy.  This  did  not  develop  an 

C°Senator  Paynter.  Did  that  case  go  to  the  extent  of  holding  the 
you  could  show,  for  instance,  that  some  member  of  a  council  who  ws 
not  on  trial  at  all,  who  was  not  a  defendant— that  you  could  sho 
a  witness  that  he  had  received  a  bribe  on  some  other  occasion . 

Mr  Austrian.  It  went  so  far  as  to  hold  that  he  had,  that  you  coul 

show- 


Senator  Paynter.  Would  that  tend  to  show  that  the  defendant  wi 
(miltv  having  received  it  in  a  particular  case  ? 

&  MY Atotrian.  Yes.  sir.  The  supreme  court  of  Illinois  has  recent! 
helLaml  vS  l  now  cite,  in  The  People  «.  Hengaw,  a  case  decide 
less  than  two  years  ago,  that  where  a  man  was  being  you  as  ;)1 
the  courts  have  held— in  a  case,  for  instance,  of  aboition,  tor 
abortion  it  was  held  it  was  competent  for  the  purpose  of  shown 
intent,  the  criminal  intent,  to  show  that  the  defendant,  a  woman, 
committed  abortions,  that  she  had  committed  abortions  on  other  pe 

sons  not  connected  with  the  case  at  all.  Just  the  same  as  h  , 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  65 

irpose  of  showing  with  what  intent  this  entire  corrupt  arrangement 
id  agreement  was  made;  to  show  what  criminal  act  the  defendant 
rowne,  a  member  of  the  legislature,  the  defendant  Broderick,  a  mem- 
r  of  the  legislature,  the  defendant  Wilson,  a  member  of  the  legisla- 
re,  who  were  all  in  this  ring,  as  the  evidence  will  disclose  as  we  go 
,  not  only  bribed  for  Lorimer  votes,  but  bribed  for  other  measures 
tering  into  this  same  transaction.  Now,  for  instance,  I  see  that 
e  record  shows  that  White  said  that  that  agreement  to  call  on 
;owne,  and  the  only  discussion  he  ever  had  with  him  about  receiving 
y  improper  reward  for  any  act  as  a  legislator,  was  that  he  was  to 
ceive  $1,000  for  his  Lorimer  vote — to  use  his  exact  expression — and 
out  as  much  more  from  other  sources;  that  was  the  arrangement 
d  agreement.  And  that  wa  the  only  talk  he  ever  had  with  Browne 
iding  up  to  the  execution  of  the  transaction  in  question.  Now,  sup- 
►se  we  follow  that  up  and  show,  as  we  will,  that  other  men  had  the 
me  arrangement  with  him  and  that  every  man  who  we  will  prove 
ted  for  Lorimer  under  this  illegal  arrangement  also  shared  in  the 
ack  pot,”  as  we  now  call  it.  Will  not  that  tend  to  show  this  criminal 
nspiracy,  if  any  existed?  Won’t  that  tend  to  show  with  what 
Dtive  the  transactions  were  had,  what  the  intent  of  the  parties  was, 
d  the  common  design  and  the  general  corruption,  because,  as  they 
id,  as  the  subcommittee  in  the  Clark  case  said,  “  That  is  coloring 
itter  that  shows  a  corrupt  system  ?  ”  Why,  in  that  case,  if  the  com- 
ttee  please,  and  your  chairman,  the  protestant  proved  that  a  man 
d  a  talk  with  a  member  of  the  legislature  with  reference  to  voting 
r  a  bill,  and  that  after  he  had  the  talk  that  money  was  found  in  his 
om,  thrown  over  the  transom.  They  went  as  far  as  that,  even.  As 
said  in  the  case  of  the  State  v.  Snetzler,  over  the  objection  of  the 
fendant,  the  State  was  permitted  to  prove  that  the  defendant  had 
reived  $2,500  as  a  bribe  to  induce  him  to  cast  his  official  vote  in  favor 
a  bill  previously  pending  before  the  house  of  delegates  affecting  the 
•hting  of  public  streets  of  St.  Louis  and  commonly  referred  to  as  the 
ighting  bill.”  The  authorities  all  hold  that,  as  a  general  rule,  the 
ate  can  not  prove  against  a  defendant  the  commission  of  offenses 
iier  than  the  one  charged  and  for  which  he  is  on  trial ;  but  exception 
ists  with  reference  to  this  rule  where  the  collateral  crime  is  brought 
to  a  system,  a  system  of  dependent  crimes,  or  on  so  marked  crimes  as 
show  that  it  was  part  of  the  same  crime,  understanding  it  in  the 
me  way,  having  some  connection  with  the  crime  charged.  And 
ain,  referring  to  another  case  in  Missouri,  that  where  two  or  more 
’enses  are  connected  under  circumstances  to  constitute  a  continuous 
complishment  of  a  common  design,  evidence  of  both  is  admissible 
•on  a  trial  for  one.  In  the  case  of  State  v.  Delano  a  decision  of  the 
preme  court  of  Arkansas,  handed  down  on  June  29,  1908,  a  bribery 

se — and  I  read  first  from  the  syllabus - 

Judge  IIanecy.  Give  me  the  page. 

Mr.  Austrian.  One  hundred  and  twelve  Southwestern  Reporter, 

ge  158. 

though  the  general  rule  is  that  evidence  of  other  crimes  or  offenses  is  in- 
missible,  this  is  a  bribery  case  against  the  defendant  charged  with  a  certain 
me,  evidence  of  offenses  or  acts  similar  to  the  one  charged  is  competent  for 
}  purpose  of  showing  knowledge,  intent,  or  design,  and  such  principle  is  not 
exception  to  the  general  rule  since  it  is  not  proof  of  other  crimes,  etc. 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 5 


66  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER* 


In  the  case  of  State  v.  Eoutezan,  the  supreme  court  of  Nebraska 
in  a  decision  of  March  9,  1908,  reported  in  the  Northwestern 
porter,  115,  page  759,  another  case  of  bribery,  said: 


This  is  an  indictment  for  bribery,  of  bribing  an  official  to  enable  a  man  1 
sell  liquor  in  violation  of  law ;  on  the  trial  of  such  officer,  charged  with  havn 
entered  into  an  arrangement  to  obtain  money  from  the  keeper  of  a  house  < 
prostitution  as  a  consideration  for  allowing  her  to  carry  on  anunlawful  occup 
tion.  and  with  having  for  several  months  received  from  her  the  sum  of 
each  month  for  that  purpose,  proof  of  payment  of  other  sums  of  money,  ha 
under  like  or  similar  agreements  by  other  persons  engaged  m  the  same  un  aw 
occupation,  may  be  received  for  the  purpose  of  corroborating  the  principal  w 
ness  upon  the  material  facts  of  the  transaction  as  alleged  m  the  information. 


There  they  permitted  them  to  prove  the  payment  by  others  engag* 
in  keeping  the  same  class  of  houses,  simply  for  the  purpose  < 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  suggest  that  was  after  the  mam  fa 
had  been  established.  You  could  not  corroborate  it  until  after  it  hi 

been  established.  _  .  .  A 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  of  course,  if  after  the  testimony  is  m  and 

is  not  established,  why,  of  course,  the  committee  will  disregard 
We  can  not  prove  the  whole  case  at  once.  1  ou  have  got  to  prove 
by  each  witness  as  you  come  to  it.  We  have  this  fact  establ  she 
that  is,  of  White  receiving,  so  far  as  he  has  testified,  $1,000  und 
the  corrupt  arrangement  and  agreement  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer. 
Senator  Heyburn.  Is  that  controverted?  Will  that  be  conti 

verted  ^  .  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  Oh,  yes;  we  will  show  by  his  own  testimony, 

his  own  admission  repeatedly,  that  that  is  not  true. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  will  go  to  the  credibility  of  the  witness,  a. 

the  weight  of  his  testimony.  .  , 

Senator  Gamble.  So  far  as  the  evidence  now  is  concerned 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  we  will  prove  that  by  a 
that  they  received  money,  as  we  claim,  for  the  vote  of  Mr.  Lonm 
These  same  persons  who  received  money  for  the  vote  of  Mr.  Lor 
as  we  think  we  will  establish,  were  in  the  common  system  of  rece 
ing  money  from  other  sources,  paid  by  the  same  peison  in  m 

instances  who  paid  for  the  Lorimer  ^  ote. 

Senator  Heyburn.  That  is  to  say,  those  who  you  claim  you  c 
show  received  money  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer,  you  can  a 
show  in  each  of  those  cases  were  men  who  secured  money  from  otl 

sources  ?  n 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir;  received  the  benefits- 


Senator  Hetourn  I  would  suggest  it  might  be  well  for  you  h 
to  state  what  you  expect  to  prove,  in  order  that  we  may  apply 

law  as  to  such  proof. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  expect  to  prove- 


Senator  Bulkeley.  L>o  you  expect  to  connect  Mr.  Lorimer  w 

this  ?  1 1 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yo,  sir;  not  in  that  way  at  all.  G 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is,  you  do  not  intend  to  connect  Sena 

k°Mr.  Austrian.  I  personally  do  not  intend  to  connect  Sena 

L°Theestatement  made  here  by  the  witnesses  that  they  had  some  t 
with  Mr.  Lorimer,  the  committee  will  please  understand,  of  cou 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  67 

hese  witnesses  I  have  never  talked  with — never  talked  with  but 
wo  of  the  witnesses  who  will  be  called  upon  the  witness  stand. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  do  not  claim  that  any  witness  will  say  that 
.e  ever  talked  with  Senator  Lorimer  about  money  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  know  of  no  one. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  say,  in  that  connection,  you  said  that  they 
Vould  show  that  they  had  some  conversation  with  Senator  Lorimer? 
Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  they  had,  but  what  that  conversation  was,  I 
o  not  know. 

Judge  Hanecy.  But  not  in  relation  to  the  payment  of  money  or 
ny  corrupt  practice,  you  do  not  mean  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  should  say  not. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  did  not  mean  to  precipitate  any  controversy 
ere  between  counsel. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Some  witnesses  may  make  some  reference  to  con- 
ersation;  I  see  upon  the  trial  of  the  Browne  case  some  reference 
as  made  to  it.  I  have  never  talked  with  a  witness  on  the  subject. 
Senator  Heyburn.  I  do  not  think  we  want  any  controversy  between 
ounsel  at  this  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  beg  your  pardon,  Senator,  I  did  not  intend 

3 - 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  think  it  is  better  to  refrain  from  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  he  had  answered  that  question  as  he  did  I 
new  it  would  clear  it  up  in  the  minds  of  the  committee  and  save 
great  deal  of  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  White  has  never  said  he  had  a  talk  with  Mr. 
iOrimer  in  this  case,  that  I  know  of.  I  know  of  no  witness  who  has 
ad  a  talk  with  Senator  Lorimer,  except  Mr.  Link.  Mr.  Link  said 
e  made — he  has  testified  that  he  made — had  his  conversation  with 
Ir.  Lorimer,  and  Mr.  Luke,  I  believe,  said  he  had,  or  stated  to  some- 
ne,  that  he  had  his  transaction  with  Mr.  Lorimer  direct.  That  will 
ome  out  in  the  evidence  just  as  it  is.  I  do  not  know  anything  about 
.  But  the  point  is  right  here,  and  I  think  the  entire  committee 
ill  agree  with  me  that  it  is  not  necessary — and  I  am  sure  Judge 
lanecy  will — it  is  not  necessary  to  connect  Senator  Lorimer  with  the 
ransaction  unless  you  expect  to  unseat  the  Senator  upon  a  direct 
barge  of  bribery.  You  may  declare  the  seat  vacant  if  there  is  evi- 
ence  introduced  showing  that  enough  votes  went  to  him  by  reason 
f  corrupt  methods  or  practices  to  take  away  his  majority.  That 
’  the  rule  of  law,  as  we  all  understand  it,  so  far  as  I  have  ever  heard 
expressed,  and  I  think  you  understand  the  law  the  same  way, 
on’t  you,  Judge  Hanecy? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  but  I  do  not  understand  its  application  to  the 
acts  that  you  will  prove. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  will  understand  them  as  the  evidence  goes  in. 
Judge  Hanecy.  Yo;  that  is  your  position. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  will  show  that  each  man  who  was  a  participant 
i  any  of  the  so-called  Lorimer  fund  was  a  part  of  the  general  sys- 
‘in  and  design,  a  part  of  it,  a  cog  in  each  one  of  these  transactions, 
nd  affected  the  same  way.  They  had  the  meeting  places,  they 
an  to  cover  at  the  same  time,  and  they  came  out  of  cover  at  the  same 
iine;  the  same  man  who  paid  the  Lorimer  money  paid  the  so-called 
ack-pot.  money  in  some  instances;  and  when  lie  did  not  pay  it  a 
lan  by  the  name  of  Wilson,  as  you  see  by  the  letters  this  morning, 


68 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


acted  for  him.  The  testimony  on  this  floor  is  that  Browne  told 
White  he  expected  to  be  in  St.  Louis  J uly  15 ;  that  instead  of  which 
White  received  a  telegram  from  Wilson  to  meet  him— W  llson  there, 
a  member  of  the  legislature;  that  thereafter  Browne  wrote  to  White 
the  next  day,  “  I  am  sorry  I  could  not  be  with  you  in  St.  Louis, 
because  I  was  attacked  by  ptomaine  poisoning,  and  it  was  not  sate 
for  me  to  go.”  Now,  the  same  man,  the  same  agency,  distributing 
that,  distributed  the  other,  as  you  will  see  more  particularly  and  more 
clearly  when  some  further  evidence  comes  m  on  that  subject.  It  i: 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  a  corrupt  design,  general  corruption 
because  if  the  field  is  sown  for  it  the  flowers  bloom  for  corrupt  101 
more  rapidly.  And  if  we  could  not  show  any  corruption,  it  we  couK 
not  show  tliat  any  man  was  bribed  for  any  purpose,  the  testimony 
that  we  may  offer  to  the  committee  would  be  of  the  least  convincin' 
kind  •  the  weight  of  the  testimony  would  be  lost ;  but  wlieie  we  shot 
that  corruption  was  rife,  that  every  man  was,  or  a  number  of  me; 
were  ready  to  be  paid,  that  they  talked  money  with  each  other  an. 
about  corrupting  and  about  getting  money  Why,  the  evidence  wn 
disclose  that  some  of  these  men  complained  because  they  did  not  gf 
enough.  Some  of  the  witnesses,  who  may  or  may  not  be  cal  ec 
complained  to  each  other  because  they  thought  that  the  up-stat 
members  of  the  house— those  living  in  Chicago— had  gotten  the  bet 
ter  of  the  down-state  members  of  the  house;  this  very  man  Biovn 
as  the  evidence  will  disclose,  sought  various  members  of  the  legn 

lature _ complained  because  they  thought  he  was  getting  more  tha 

they  but  that  he  was  in  the  position  of  taking  a  greater  risk  an 
therefore  entitled  to  more  money.  Why,  after  this  thing  brok 
after  this  disclosure  was  made,  the  evidence  will  disclose  that  tl 
members  of  the  two  houses  who  were  in  this  combine  met,  and  fr 
quentlv  met,  for  the  purpose  of  shaping  what  their  course  of  coi 
duct  should  be  and  making  a  story  that  would  fit  each  other.  E\ei 
solitary  fact  that  will  be  offered  in  evidence  here  will  show  a  ge, 
oral  corrupt  design  to  control  not  only  the  votes  for  the  Unit* 
States  Senator,  but  to  control  various  measures  that  were  introduce 
fnto  the  various  assemblies.  Why,  it  was  in  the  atmosphere  1 
one  told  this  man  White,  as  he  has  testified  here  what  measures  1 
should  vote  for.  He  will  tell  you,  if  you  put  the  question  to  hii 
that  measures  that  he  voted  against  were  measures  that  were  ben 
fostered  by  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  the  minority  leader.  No  one  to 
the  witness  Beckemever,  who  will  go  upon  the  witness  stand,  wh 
measures  he  should  'vote  for.  But  Beckemeyer  got  his  tliousa. 
and  then  he  got  his  nine  hundred.  No  one  told  the  witness  Ln 
who  will  be  railed  upon  the  witness  stand,  what  measures  to  lote  f. 
L  fact  the  witness  says  that  he  talked  with  Mr.  Lorimer  or  1 
T  orimer  spoke  to  him  a  week  or  ten  days  before  the  minority  lead 
Browim  aTed  him,  Mr.  Lorimer  asking  him  if  he  knew  Brow, 
and  that  subsequently  Mr.  Link  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  and  th 
lie  was  paid  $1,000  on  the  same  day  the  others  were  paid  $1,0 
then  he  went  to  St.  Louis,  on  July  15,  the  same  day  they  all  went 
St  Louis,  and  then  he  got  his  $900  from  other  sources,  the  same  $. 
that  the v  all  20t.  We  will  show  that  others-Luke  and  other  me 
bers  of  the  legislature,  a  number  of  them— followed  the  same  com 
followed  in  the  same  footsteps  of  Link,  and  each  and  every  one  < 
get  the  $900,  the  sum  of  $900,  except  Iloltslaw,  who  got  $2,5 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  69 

Tow,  that  shows  the  system.  There  were  not  words  spoken.  There 
ere  acts.  We  all  know,  who  are  familiar  with  this  case,  in  some 
egree  at  least,  that  they  did  not  say,  “We  will  now  do  so  and  so; 
lis  will  be  your  part,  and  that  is  your  part  ” — no;  there  were  things 
iken  for  granted  and  after  those  things  were  taken  for  granted  they 
cted  pursuant  to  a  common  design,  and  each  went  to  the  same  place, 
nd  each  came  back  from  the  same  place,  and  each  had  the  same 
mount  of  money.  Now,  if  that  is  not  competent  evidence  to  show 
system,  to  show  the  intent,  to  show-  the  purpose,  I  fail  to  see  it. 
urthermore - - 

Senator  Burrows.  In  the  course  of  your  argument  you  used  the  ex- 
ression,  “  The  Lorimer  money  ”  or  “  The  Lorimer  fund.” 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  what  the  witnesses  sav. 

Senator  Burrowts.  What  do  you  mean  by  that  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  their  transactions,  apparently,  they  referred  to 
loney  that  they  were  to  get  in  June  as  the  Lorimer  money,  that  was 
died  the  Lorimer  money,  and  the  money  that  they  got  two  or  three 
r  four  weeks  later,  that  was  referred  to  as  the  “  money  from  other 
lurces.”  Now,  I  do  not  know  what  they  meant  by  it;  they  never 
iscussed  it ;  and  the  only  one  witness  or  witnesses  who  did  discuss  it 
ere  Browne  or  Wilson  and  Broderick  with  another  man;  they 
mply  went  up  to  the  trough,  as  one  witness  will  say,  and  “  got 
leirs” — that  is  all.  Now,  it  is  for  you  to  determine,  to  find  from 
le  evidence  that  will  go  in,  what  is  competent  and  what  is  incompe- 
•nt,  and  your  judicial  judgments  will  not  be  biased  or  prejudiced 
ne  way  or  the  other;  if  this  evidence  comes  in  and  you  should  de- 
Tmine  it  is  incompetent  after  you  have  heard  it  all,  that  it  is  not  a 
art  of  the  same  transaction,  you  will  simply  disregard  it,  and  your 
idgments  will  not  be  influenced  in  any  way  thereby,  or  after  hearing 
II  about  this  transaction,  it  is  so  interwoven  in  its  various  stages 
nd  you  find  out  that  you  can  not  separate  it,  then  you  will  act  ac- 
>rdingly.  For  instance,  one  member  of  the  legislature  who  got 
1,000  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  and  nine  hundred  for  voting — - 
om  some  other  source,  and  when  I  say  that,  that  is  not  evidence; 
nu  need  not  take  that  as  evidence,  but  the  evidence  in  this  case  will 
isclose  this  and  the  conversations  will  be  detailed  with  other  various 
lembers  of  the  legislature  with  reference  to  the  jack  pot,  so  called, 
ad  with  reference  to  the  Lorimer  money.  You  can  not  stop  a  wit- 
ess  who  is  testifying  and  say  “  stop  there  at  that  fact  or  transac- 
on,"  and  consider  just  one  part  of  a  fact,  but  it  must  all  go  in  as  a 
art  of  the  entire  transaction.  It  is  not  remote,  or  had  not  hap- 
ened  two  years  before,  but  it  happened  contemporaneously — it  all 
appened  the  same  time,  and  for  the  purpose  of  showing  this  general 
irruption  that  was  rife  in  this  legislature,  with  reference  to  the  elec- 
on  of  Lorimer,  and  with  reference  to  other  sources,  if  you  please, 
itnesses  will  testify  that  they  were  directed  to  vote  for  no  measure  at 
I! — none;  and  should  you  interrogate  the  witness  White  you  w-ill 
nd  that  he  voted  against  measures  that  Browne  was  for  as  well  as 
oting  for  them.  No  single  witness  can  detail  any  single  piece  of 
gislation  that  he  voted  for  that  was  in  the  jack  pot.  Now,  when 
iey  got  into  the  Lorimer  deal  they  were  in  the  jack  pot — not  by 
ords,  but  by  acts,  and  every  man  who  got  his  money  from  Lorimer 
i  the  Lorimer  deal,  got  his  money  out  of  the  jack  pot;  and  there 
as  no  agreement,  nothing  express,  nothing  said;  they  simply  shared 


70  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

it.  Now,  it  is  for  you  to  determine  what  the  arrangement  and  agree¬ 
ment  was  after  you  have  heard  all  of  the  evidence. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  could  not  account 
for  the  paradoxes  of  the  gentleman  who  has  just  been  talking.  He 
was  talking  for  a  half  an  hour  in  saying  that  there  was  a  specific 
agreement  or  contract  for  the  payment  of  a  specified  sum  of  money 
for  a  vote  for  Lorimer.  That  is  exactly  what  the  witness  testified 
to— that  he  was  to  get  a  thousand  dollars  for  voting  for  Lorimer 
that  he  had  an  agreement  that  he  was  to  get  that,  and  that  he  did  gel 
the  money,  a  hundred  dollars  at  one  time  and  nine  hundred  at  an¬ 
other,  and  that  he  was  told  when  he  was  given  the  hundred  dollars 
that  was  part  of  the  Lorimer  money ;  the  night  before  he  got  the  $85( 
of  the  nine  hundred  he  was  given  $50  and  he  was  told  when  he  was 
given  the  $50  that  the  other— that  that  was  not  part  of  the  Lorimei 
money,  and  he  would  get  the  balance  of  the  Lorimer  money  to 
morrow;  and  he  swears  that  the  next  day,  on  the  17th— he  is  mis 
taken,  it  was  the  18th — the  first  day  was  the  17th — he  said  herein 
16th,  and  the  second  day  was  the  17th — the  first  day  was  the  17th 
and  the  second  day  was  the  18th,  and  when  he  got  the  $850  the  secom 
day  he  said  that  he  was  told  that  that  was  the  balance  of  his  Lorime 
money.  Now,  this  gentleman  asks  you  to  believe  that  that  is  no 
true, ‘and  that  it  was  not  testified  to  here.  We  say  it  is  not  true 
There  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it,  as  we  will  show  by  the  witnes 
himself  and  by  his  other  statements  on  different  occasions ;  but  the; 
want  this  committee  to  believe  that  he  never  said  that,  and  that  n< 
witness  has  said  or  will  say  that  there  was  an  agreement  to  pay 
certain  sum  of  money  for  a  vote  for  Lorimer. 

Now,  that  is  not  the  fact.  That  is  not  the  sworn  testimony  ol  an. 
one  of  the  four  witnesses  who  were  forced  either  by  the  payment  o 
money  to  swear  to  that,  or  by  the  club  of  a  grand  jury  indictment 
Every  one  of  those  witnesses  testified  that  they  did  get  a  thousan. 
dollars.  They  did  not  testify  to  nine  hundred.  That  question  wa 
attempted  to  be  shown  in  the  first  trial  of  this  case  and  was  entnel 
ruled  out  after  the  very  fullest  arguments  by  as  able  counsel  as  ther 
is  in  this  State  or  the  West;  that  the  testimony  was  not  admissibl 
there;  that  there  was  a  charge  there  of  bribery  against  Browne,  br 
Browne  could  not  be  tried  for  any  other  offense  than  the  one  to 
which  he  was  indicted;  that  the  purpose  of  the  law  was  to  have 
orand  jury  investigate;  and  they  put— formulated— that  into  an  n 
dictment  for  the  purpose  of  notifying  the  defendant  of  the  thing 
he  was  charged  with  so  that  he  might  properly  prepare  his  defens, 
and  that  he  must  have  the  names  of  the  witnesses  upon  that  charge  c 
indictment  so  that  he  may  know  and  he  may  be  confronted  with  tl: 
witnesses  who  are  to  testify  against  him.  It  is  the  uniform  law,  an 
it  has  been  such  since  before  any  of  us  ever  saw  the  light  of  day,  tht 
in  every  State  where  the  common  law  of  England  is  enforced,  and  l 
every  State  and  in  every  country  where  the  common  law  of  Engl  an 
is  the  basis  or  foundation  of  the  code  or  the  statutes  or  the  system  ( 
laws,  as  made  can  be  proven  directly,  you  must  prove  that  charge  i 
made  and  you  can  not  try  that  defendant  for  that  offense  thei 
charged  by ‘proving  that  he  committed  another  like  offense  on  tl 
same  day,  the  day  before,  the  day  after,  or  any  other  time. 

Now,  that  is  the  rule  as  to  the  man  charged  with  the  offense.  J  h( 
do  not  claim  here  that  Browne  is  on  trial.  Browne  is  not  the  ms 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  71 

n  trial  here,  or  under  investigation.  It  is  Senator  Lorimer.  Yet 
hey  want  this  committee  to  hear  charges  that  Mr.  White  says  took 
)lace  between  himself  and  Browne  and  Wilson,  and  probably  hun¬ 
dreds  of  thousands  of  unnamed  persons  with  everybody.  They  con- 
end,  most  earnestly  contend,  that  everybody  who  sought  legislation 
n  the  legislature  and  contributed  money  to  the  so-called  jack  pot 
onvicts  Senator  Lorimer,  charges  him  with  furnishing  evidence 
gainst  him  piled  up  on  the  structure  of  bribery  and  procuring  his 
lection  by  corrupt  practices,  piles  up  a  structure  to  prove  that,  when 
jorimer  never  knew  and  never  heard  of  any  one  of  the  people.  If 
hat  is  the  law,  and  if  that  is  permitted  here,  suppose  that  Senator 
jorimer  on  the  first  day  of  the  session  of  the  legislature,  that  he 
fight  be,  if  he  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  in  each  house  sep- 
rately,  that  was  all  that  was  necessary  to  do,  then  was  for  the  two 
ouses  to  come  together  in  joint  assembly,  the  body  that  was  created 
y  act  of  Congress  of  1866,  and  read  the  journal  and  declare  the 
esult. 

Now,  that  session  may  have  continued  for  six  months  afterwards, 
period  of  time  of  three  or  four  times  six  months  may  have  elapsed, 
t  may  have  been  a  continuous  session  of  the  legislature  as  we  have 
ad  evidence  of  it  here  in  Illinois — recesses  taken  and  meeting  again — 
nd  then  Senator  Lorimer  on  the  first  day  of  the  term  would  be 
barged  with  everything  that  any  corruptionist  practiced,  with  the 
lembers  of  the  legislature  in  the  creation  of  a  jack  pot  for  the 
assage  of,  if  you  call  that  legislation.  This  necessarily  was  the 
octrine.  That  is  what  this  committee  must  necessarily  hold  if  it 
dmits  this  evidence;  if  it  admits  this  evidence  of  jack  "pot,  then  it 
dmits  that  same  evidence  to  prove  that  Senator  Lorimer  obtained 
is  office  by  bribery  or  corrupt  practices.  And  if  it  may  be  shown 
lat  that  was  done  on  that  day,  on  that  very  day  or  the  day  before, 
r  the  week  before,  it  may  be  done  any  time  back  to  the  beginning 
f  the  session  and  down  to  the  end  of  it.  Senator  Lorimer  was 
lected  on  the  26th  of  May;  he  was  not  a  candidate  until  that  day. 
le  had  refused  repeatedly  to  permit  his  name  to  be  used  as  a  can- 
idate  until  that  day.  He  had  refused  to  permit  Judge  Mcllvane, 
ne  of  the  members  of  the  legislature,  to  vote  for  him,  although 
udge  Mcllvane  had  repeatedly  said  that  he  was  going  to  do  it 
nyway  and  that  he  did  some  few  days  before,  and  Senator  Lorimer 
sed  his  greatest  efforts  to  prevent  his  name  going  before  the  legis- 
tture.  He  told  Governor  Deneen  that  he  was  for  Governor  Deneen. 
le  told  Speaker  Shurtleff  this,  and  the  public  generally,  that  he  was 
)r  Speaker  Shurtleff  for  Senator.  He  talked  with  Governor  Deneen 
nd  he  talked  with  different  members  and  different  prominent  officials 
nd  public  men  to  induce  some  other  public  man  to  become  a  candi- 
ate  when  it  was  apparent  that  the  legislature  could  not,  and  would 
ot  elect  Senator  Hopkins.  Governor  Deneen  discussed  over  and  over 
?ain,  with  repeated  night  conferences  that  lasted  until  3  or  4  o’clock 
}  the  morning,  with  Senator  Lorimer,  the  probability  and  possi- 
ility  of  getting  some  one  to  run  for  the  Senate,  and  Governor  Deneen 
ill  testify  from  that  witness  chair,  under  oath,  if  he  is  brought 
ere,  that  he  suggested  to  Senator  Lorimer  that  before  Senator 
lOrimer’s  name  was  suggested  even  by  anyone  else — possibly  not 
y  anyone  else — but  that  he  suggested  to  Senator  Lorimer  many 
mes  before  Senator  Lorimer  was  a  candidate,  that  he,  Senator 


72  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Lorimer,  become  a  candidate  for  Senator  of  the  United  States 
After  the  discussion  of  every  one  of  the  men  who  were  discussed  as  j 
possibility  or  probability  for  the  office,  discussed  by  Senator  Lorime 
and  Governor  Deneen,  when  they  found  that  one  or  the  other  couh 
not  agree  upon  the  man  named,  Governor  Deneen  would  return  to  th 
old  question,  “  Well,  then,  you  must  be  a  candidate,'’  or  Why  don 
you  become  a  candidate?  ”  and  Senator  Lorimer  had  always  refused 
and  that  is  made  a  charge  true  here  that  he  was  not  voted  for  b; 
any  considerable  number  of  men  until  that  day  he  was  elected  ant 
that  there  was  evidence  that  there  was  corruption  in  inducing  men  t 
vote  for  him. 

Now,  let  me  go  back  to  the  question  of  law.  It  is  true  that,  as 
stated  before,  wherever  the  fact  charged  or  any  essential  fact  in  a  cas 
is  susceptible  of  direct  proof,  you  must  prove  that,  not  only  by  direc 
proof,  but  you  must  prove  it  by  the  highest  class  of  evidence.  Yo 
can  not  prove  it  by  secondary  or  third-class  evidence.  If  the  first  o 
higher  quality  of  evidence  can  not  be  obtained,  then  you  can  prove  i 
bv  secondary  evidence,  though  the  proof  originally  was  lost  or  can  nc 
be  found,  as  any  act  or  destruction  on  the  part  of  the  person  desire 
to  produce  it.  But  whenever  the  charge  against  the  party  is  an  at 
which  may  be  innocent  in  itself  or  may  be  a  crime  in  itself,  then  yo 
have  the  right  to  prove  other  facts,  not  for  the  purpose  of  provin 
the  crime  or  the  offense  charged,  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  th 
intent  of  the  party  who  committed  the  act,  to  commit  the  crim< 
For  instance,  and  it  is  well  known  in  the  reports,  well  known  to  lav 
yers  and  jurists,  an  indictment  for  parties  counterfeiting  money  c 
passing  forged  paper — the  passing  of  the  money  itself  is  not  a  crime 
it  is  not  a  crime,  per  se,  to  pass  it ;  it  is  not  a  crime  to  pass  forge 
paper,  unless  you  knew  the  money  was  bogus  money  or  unless  yc 
knew  that  the ‘paper  was  forged,  and  you  can  not  enter  the  mind  ( 
the  defendant  to  ascertain  whether  he  knew  that  fact  or  not.  No\ 
the  law  provides  that  in  a  case  of  that  kind,  where  the  passing  of  tl 
money  was  an  innocent  act  in  itself  and  may  have  been  committc 
by  a  party  who  had  no  knowledge  whatever  that  the  money  w; 
bogus  or  that  the  paper  was  forged,  you  can  not  convict  him  by  pro1 
ing  merely  that  he  passed  the  money  or  the  paper;  that  the  mom 
was  bogus;  or  that  he  passed  forged  paper  and  it  was  forged;  yc 
have  got  to  shew  knowledge  and  you  have  got  to  show  intent;  yc 
have  got  to  show  knowledge  that  it  was  bogus  money  or  forged  pape 
and  you  have  got  to  show  that  he  intended  to  pass  it  as  such. 

Now,  you  can  not  do  that.  You  can  not  enter  the  mind  of  tl 
defendant  ;  but  the  law  is  that  you  may  show  that  that  same  im 
who  passed  a  bogus  $5  bill  the  day  before  or  the  week  before,  pass* 
five  other  bogus  $5  bills,  not  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  1 
passed  that  one,  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  he  knew  th 
the  $5  bills  that  he  passed,  or  that  he  had  reason  to  know  that  tl 
$5  bill  that  he  had  previously  passed,  was  bogus  money— were  bog 
bills— and  that  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  showing  intent;  and  t 
jury  has  got  to  be  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  or  the  court, 
the  court  be  finding  the  facts— whatever  body  be  finding  the  facts 
must  be  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  not  only  that  the  crir 
was  committed,  but  that  he  had  committed  it  with  that  intent  ai 
knowledge.  So,  they  have  held  here  in  this  last  case  of  Illinois  th 
Mr.  Austrian  has  referred  to,  where  it  was  a  charge  of  abortn 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER,  73 

against  a  midwife.  The  girl  or  the  woman  upon  whom  the  abortion 
was  charged  to  have  been  committed  may  have  been  entirely  inno¬ 
cent  on  the  part  of  the  midwife ;  the  tampon  or  the  probe,  or  what¬ 
ever  was  inserted  into  the  womb  of  the  woman,  may  have  been  prop¬ 
erly  placed  there,  and  the  only  way  that  they  could  prove  that  it 
was  improperly  placed  there  was  to  show  that  the  woman  charged 
n  the  indictment  with  committing  the  abortion  knew  that  she  was 
committing  an  abortion,  and  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  she 
mew  that  and  that  she  had  the  intent  to  do  it,  the  court  held  that 
hev  had  a  right  to  prove  that  she  had  committed  other  offenses  on 
numerous  occasions  of  the  same  kind,  and  that  in  performing  the 
ict  that  she  had,  in  the  insertion  of  the  probe  or  the  tampon,  or 
vhatever  it  was,  it  was  not  done  innocently,  but  was  done  for  the 
mrpose  of  destroy  ing  a  human  life  or  w’hat  would  have  been  one. 

But-  there  is  in  every  case— the  first  case  that  was  read  by  Mr. 
Austrian  shows  you  have  got  to  first  show  the  offense  and  then  you 
lave  got  to  show  or  to  bring  in  the  other  evidence  that  they  make  a 
ink  and  made  a  system.  ou  have  got  to  show  that  to  prove  the 
rime  that  the  defendant  committed  other  acts,  not  other  similar  acts 
>ecause  upon  those  he  never  was  indicted  and  tried — being  tried,' 
ou  can  not  prove  additional  offenses  of  the  same  character ;  you  have 
ot  to  show  that  they  were  linked  together,  interwoven  with  each 
ther,  that  the  other  offenses  were  interwoven  with  the  one  charged, 
i  the  idence  is  not  competent.  The  noted  English  case  the  lawvers 
ave  argued  over  and  over  again;  you  can  not  prove  one  burglary 
y  proof  that  the  man  charged  with  the  burglary  committed  another 
ne.  But  in  the  English  reports  there  is  a  noted  case  of  that  kind. 
l  certain  man  was  charged  with  burglary,  or  certain  men  were 
barged  with  burglary;  they  were  indicted  and  they  were  put  upon 
ual,  and  it  was  offered  to  show  that  they  burglarized  a  particular 
ouse  on  that  night  other  than  the  one  they  were  indicted  for 
urglarizing,  and  that  then  they  went  to  the  other  house;  they  proved 
lat  the  house,  the  third  house,  had  been  burglarized.  Then  they 
roved  that  two  other  burglaries  had  been  committed  on  two  other 
ouses  on  the  same  night,  and  they  proved  that  certain  things  that 
ere  taken  from  the  first  house  were  found  in  the  third  house,  and 
ley  proved  that  certain  things  taken  by  the  burglars  from  the  second 
ouse  were  found  in  the  third  house. 

Now,  that  proved  the  crime  of  burglary  against  the  man,  first,  on 
le  charge  that  he  was  indicted  on.  They  proved  the  burglary  was 
immitted  there,  and  the  purpose  of  showing  the  other  offenses  was  to 
iow  that  they  had  been  burglarizing,  and  that  comes  in  our  law  in 
aking  statutes;  the  sentence  of  the  defendant  perhaps  is  different; 
they  are  incorrigible  or  old  offenders,  why,  the  sentence  would  be 
•eater,  is  fixed  by  statute  or  by  the  jury,  than  it  would  if  it  had 
ien  the  first  offense.  Now,  that  proof  that  the  first  burglary  was 
unmitted  and  that  some  of  the  things  taken  from  the  first  house 
ere  found  in  the  third  house  burglarized,  that  was  burglarized  by 
ie  man  on  trial,  and  they  found  that  some  of  the  things  that  were 
ken  from  the  second  house  were  left  by  the  burglars  who  committed 
>e  third  burglary  in  that  house,  and  that  is  the  only  ground  upon 
inch  you  can  show  previous  burglaries.  Supposing  here,  and  there 
•e  a  few  cases  of  that  kind,  and  in  every  case  in  the  books  where 
iier  or  similar  offenses  are  committed,  they  are  not  permitted  in 


74  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

evidence  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  he  committed  the  offens* 
charged  in  the  particular  case,  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  in 
tent  and  knowledge  of  the  things  charged  against  him  here.  Now 
supposing  ten  of  these  legislators,  or  supposing  twenty  of  them  ha( 
gone  to  a  banquet  some  place,  even  a  larger  number,  and  while  a 
that  banquet  they  had  committed  a  robbery,  or  supposing  that  the; 
held  up  somebody,  or  suppose  they  murdered  somebody.  Woul< 
Senator  Lorimer  or  some  one  else  who  was  charged  with  obtaining 
their  election  by  corrupt  practices  or  bribery  be  resposible  for  wha 
they  did  there?  Just  as  much  reason  and  just  as  much  sense  fo 
charging  him  with  it  as  to  charge  him  with  the  acts  they  did  i] 
some"  bathroom  or  some  other  place  in  the  collecting  or  in  the  dis 
tribution  of  money  that  he  hadn’t  anything  to  do  with— money  tha 
was  paid  for  legislation  or  money  that  was  paid  to  kill  legislation 
money  that  was  paid  weeks  or  months  before  they  voted  for  Senato 
Lorimer  or  before  he  was  a  candidate,  or  money  that  was  pai« 
weeks  or  months  after  he  was  elected  Senator,  and  that  he  kne^ 
nothing  about;  because  you  can  not  simply  introduce  this,  or  alku 

this  in  and  stop.  ,  .  x 

If  the  principle  is  permitted  here  after  this  it  must  go  to  the  ex 

tent  of  holding  that  everybody  that  paid  money  into  the  jack  pc 
from  the  beginning  of  the  session  down  to  the  time  Senator  Lorime 
was  elected,&and  if  every  dollar  that  was  paid  into  the  jack  pot  t 
kill  legislation  or  to  procure  it  after  his  election  to  the  end  of  th 
session^  is  competent  as  proof  against  Lorimer  to  prove  that  he  ot 
tained  his  office  by  bribery  or  by  corrupt  practices.  The  charge  is  nc 
here.  They  contain  all  the  ingeniousnesses  of  the  charge  and  must  t 
quite  apparent  to  the  members  of  this  committee.  They  say  this  i 
not  merely  a  charge  of  bribery,  but  they  say  it  is  a  charge  of  briber 
and  corrupt  practices,  and  they  are  trying  to  get  this  committee,  an 
through  it  the  larger  committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  LTnited  States,  t 
hold  that  Senator^ Lorimer  must  suffer  because  some  of  the  men  wh 
voted  for  him  for  United  States  Senator  were  guilty  of  comq 
practices  before  they  voted  for  him  or  after  they  voted  for  him ;  an 
if  that  be  established  as  a  rule  then  this  committee  might  just  as  we 
start  an  investigation  to  test  the  manner  in  which  Senator  Culloi 
holds  his  office,  or  any  other  Senator  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
permit  anybody  who  claims  that  they  paid  or  received  or  claims  the 
received  any  money  during  that  session  of  the  legislature  at  whic 
he  was  elected  to  claim  that  he  committed  corrupt  practices  and  tin 
Senator  Cullom  or  the  other  gentleman  was  liable,  was  guilty  c 
corrupt  practices,  in  his  election  as  United  States  Senator. 

If  bribery  was  used  in  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer;  if  so,  r 
intent  is  necessary  to  be  proven.  The  act  itself  carries  with  it  tl 
intent.  You  can’t  club  a  man  on  the  head  or  any  part  of  his  anatom 
and  say:  “  I  didn’t  intend  to  do  it.”  You  can’t  strike  a  man  on  tl 
jaw  or  under  the  chin  deliberately  and  then  say.  I  didn  t  intendj 
do  it.”  You  can’t  run  a  knife  into  a  man’s  vital  and  then  say  : 
did  not  intend  to  hurt  him  with  a  deadly  instrument.”  The  act  itse 
carries  with  it  the  intent.  So  here  the  crime  of  paying  a  thousar 
dollars  if  White  would  vote  for  Lorimer  carries  with  it  the  mtent- 
the  very  act  itself  carries  with  it  the  intent.  There  may  not  ha' 
been  a  dollar  paid  in  Springfield  or  in  the  Briggs  House  in  Chicai 
or  any  other  place,  if  TV  hite  agreed  with  Senator  Lorimer  or  wi 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHANGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOEIMEB.  75 

■nybody  that  Senator  Lorimer  was  responsible  for,  then  the  crime  of 
>ribery  was  committed,  not  merely  for  the  purposes  of  this  com- 
nittee,  but  for  the  purposes  of  the  criminal  court,  and  he  should  be 
onvicted  of  bribery.  The  defense  is  complete  when  the  contract  is 
nade,  even  though  a  dollar  in  money  was  not  paid.  But  here  this 
witness  testifies  that  it  was  agreed  that  he  was  to  have  a  thousand 
lollars  if  he  voted  for  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator.  And  he 
ays  he  got  the  money ;  and  he  says  when  he  got  the  $50  of  the  last 
;900  he  was  told  that  he  would  get  the  balance  of  the  Lorimer  money 
he  next  day.  When  he  got  the  eight  hundred  and  fifty  the  next  day, 
ie  says  he  was  told  that  that  was  the  balance  of  the  Lorimer  money! 
?his  is  not  the  only  time  he  has  testified  to  that.  We  have  here  two 
ecords  of  the  two  trials  of  the  People  against  Browne,  where  White 
estified  before.  We  have  his  sworn  testimony  in  both  of  those  cases. 
>”ow,  this  committee  is  asked  to  believe  that  he  did  not  so  testify— 
sked  to  admit  as  against  Senator  Lorimer  the  fact  or  the  facts  that 
omebody,  some  railroad  company,  or  some  corporation,  or  some  indi- 
idual  wanting  legislation  paid  money  into  a  fund  to  get  it,  or  wanted 
o  kill  legislation  and  paid  money  into  a  fund  to  kill  it,  and  that 
ienator  Lorimer  is  responsible  for  it. 

Now,  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  argue  to  you,  gentlemen,  or  to 
ny  other  intelligent  man  in  this  age,  in  this  community,  that  a  mere 
harge  is  sufficient  to  condemn  a  man  for  the  time  being,  and  that  is 
he  purpose  and  plan  of  Mr.  Austrian,  to  charge  Senator  Lorimer 
ith  the  acts  of  the  “jack  potters,”  as  they  are  called.  We  think 
he  acts,  not  simply  of  the  man  who  claimed  to  be  entitled  to  a 
istributive  share  of  that  fund,  but  that  the  acts  of  the  man  who  paid 
ie  money  into  that  fund  to  be  distributed,  not  for  Senator  Lorimer, 
ut  for  other  purposes. 

It  is  charged  here,  or  attempted  to  be  charged  here,  that  Senator 
iorimer  himself,  or  through  others,  obtained  his  office  by  bribery  or 
rirrupt  practices.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  this  committee  to 
ie  statement  made  bv  Mr.  Austrian  as  it  will  appear  by  the  record 
y  both  the  official  and  unofficial  reporters.  He  stated  that  Mr.  Luke, 
t  St.  Louis,  stated  certain  things.  Mr.  Luke  is  dead.  They  have 
ibpoenaed  Mrs.  Luke,  his  widow,  to  come  here;  and  four  of  you 
entlemen  wanted  to  know,  and  three  at  least  asked  questions,  and 
enator  Heyburn  said  that  you  could  not  introduce  the  wife  of  a 
creased  legislator,  and  Mr.  Austrian  said.  “  Yes,  we  can;  she  is  his 
idow.  She  is  not  the  wife ;  she  is  the  widow  of  Mr.  Luke.”  If  you 
entlemen  will  read  the  Chicago  Tribune  of  yesterday  morning  you 
ill  find  an  article  there,  on  the  first  page,  in  the  first  column  (prob- 
l)ly  written  by  Mr.  O’Loughlin),  charging  that  Mr.  Luke  stated  to 
ie  state's  attorney — and  you  will  find  the  name  among  the  list  of 
finesses,  Mrs.  C.  E.  Luke — that  he  stated  to  H.  I).  Murray,  who  is 
ate’s  attorney  of  that  county,  certain  things;  and  that  article  was 
wblished  in  the  Chicago  Tribune,  whether  written  by  Mr.  O’Lough- 
n,  who  is  high  priest  of  that  kind  of  literature  it  bears  the  earmarks 
f-  The  article  says  that  Mr.  Luke  admitted  to  the  state’s  attorney 
f  the  county  he  lived  in  that  he  had  been  paid  a  thousand  dollars  to 
ote  for  Senator  Lorimer,  and  that  if  Mr.  Beckemeyer  did  not  get 
-  he  was  a  fool.  Mr.  Murray  telegraphed  that  the  story  was  a 
ibrication  from  beginning  to  end.  It  is  not  true  in  substance  or 
ict — no  admissions  of  that  kind  were  ever  made.  Now,  it  is  impor- 


76  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

tant  to  the  party  being  investigated  here  that  that  kind  of  a  charge 
should  not  be  fostered  and  built  up  before  this  committee,  and  they 
give  it  official  recognition  here. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Counsel  has  brought  in  here  some  things  that 
occurred  before  an  executive  session  of  this  committee.  Would  it  not 
be  just  as  well  to  keep  any  suggestions  made  before  the  committee  outr! 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  beg  your  pardon  if  I  have  disclosed  anything 
that  ought  not  to  be  disclosed.  It  was  published  in  yesterday  morn 
ing’s  issue  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  and  I  did  not  suppose  it  was  £ 
secret  matter  unless  the  circulation  of  the  Tribune  was  so  limitec 
that  the  publication  alone  would  make  it  secret. 

Senator  ITeyburn.  It  is  not  the  intention  that  anything  that  trans¬ 
pires  in  executive  session  should  be  disclosed  outside. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  had  no  desire  to  do  that,  and  if  I  have  I  desir< 
to  apologize  again.  That  is  a  list  of  the  names  of  the  witnesses. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  refer  to  my  remarks. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  was  a  remarkable  lawyer,  not  of  the  commit 
tee.  that  the  testimony  might  not  be  competent,  and  Mr.  Austriai 
said  it  was. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  shall  make  no  remarks  except  as  a  member  o 
the  committee. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  suppose  it  would  be  difficult  to  divorce  you 
membership  on  the  committee  from  that  of  a  lawyer.  That  remarl 
was  made  as  a  lawyer  familiar  with  the  rules  of  evidence.  I  have  j 
case  in  the  seventy-fifth  Southwestern  Reporter  which  lays  down  tli 
rules  just  as  I  have  stated.  In  the  last  case  cited  by  Brother  Aus 
train  in  one  hundred  and  twelfth  Southwestern  Reporter  this  ex 
pressed  language  is  used :  “  For  the  purpose  of  showing  knowledge 

intent,  and  design.”  _  .  x. 

The  statements  are  shown  not  for  the  purpose  ot  showing  th 

charge  Blaney  was  on  trial  for,  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing 

knowledge,  intent,  and  design.  You  can  not,  in  proving  an  offens 
charged  against  a  party,  prove  it  by  proving  that  he  committed  othe 
offenses  of  that  kind  on  other  occasions,  I  do  not  care  what  they  are 
except  in  cases  where  a  party  passes  bogus  money,  forged  paper  o 
cause  an  abortion,  where  you  can  not  prove  the  intent  in  any  othe 

way.  Where  you  have  got  to  prove  the  crime  by  proving  othe 

offenses,  it  is*  not  necessary  to  prove  any  other  offense.  It  i 
not  necessary  that  somebody  else  committed  a  like  offense  o 
other  offense,"  and  it  is  not  attempted  to  be  shown  here  that  Senato 
Lorimer,  who  is  the  party  being  investigated  here,  did  some  particu 
lar  thing,  but  it  is  claimed  that  some  of  the  men  who  voted  for  hir 
committed  other  acts  not  in  relation  to  his  election,  but  in  relatio 
to  some  other  corrupt  practices  that  in  no  way  relate  to  the  electio 
of  United  States  Senator.  I  think  I  made  myself  quite  clear  on  th 
question  of  law  raised  by  Brother  Austrian  in  the  Clark  case.  1 
would  be  the  same  here  if  this  were  a  case  where  Mr.  Browne  wa 
charged  with  bribery  and  was  being  tried  and  somebody  represent 
ino-  him  went  to  the  judge  he  was  being  tried  before  and  tried  t 
bribe  him  to  dismiss  the  proceedings.  In  other  words,  it  was  linke 
together— as  the  court  holds  in  this  case  cited  by  Mr.  Austria] 
It  was  linked  together  with  the  bribery ;  it  was  the  corruption  an 
bribery  of  a  party  who  was  subject  to  punishment  ;  that  bribery  ha 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  77 

at  been  committed  in  the  election  of  Senator  Clark,  otherwise  it 
ould  not  be  competent. 

You  can  not  prove  the  principal  charge  by  proving  some  other  or 
milar  offense,  because  the  offense  charged  here  is  susceptible  of 
irect  proof.  If  his  testimony  is  true,  then  the  intent  goes  with  the 
it,  and  I  submit  that  if  this  is  gone  into  that  it  means  a  very  pro- 
acted  session,  because  we  may  show  by  one  or  two  witnesses  here 
tat  certain  parties  were  guilty  of  “jack  potting”  and  you  received 
distributive  share  of  the  jack  pot,  and  somebody  else  supplements 
is  testimony  by  showing  that  the  Illinois  Central  or  the  Michigan 
entral  and  the  Santa  Fe  and  all  the  other  railroads  and  numerous 
her  corporations  paid  money  into  the  fund  for  the  purpose  of 
Gaining  certain  legislation,  or  for  the  purpose  of  killing  certain 
gislation,  or  both.  Then,  if  they  have  a  right  to  do  that,  and  are 
emitted  to  do  it,  then  we  could  call  every  individual  and  corpora- 
on  and  prove  by  them  that  they  did  not  pay  any  money  in  there 
>r  any  such  purpose.  Because  if  that  is  not  permitted  to  be  done, 
Len  you  have  permitted  this  man  White  to  besmirch  every  member 
:  the  legislature  who  can  not  be  heard  here,  unless  he  is  "permitted 
'■  come  in  here  and  establish  the  fact  that  he  did  not  participate  in 
av  jack  pot,  and  that  no  money  was  paid  to  him  out  of  any  jack  pot 
ad  no  money  was  paid  to  him  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer,  and 
e  must  have  the  right,  if  there  is  to  be  full  investigation,  and  I 
aow  there  will  be  here,  and  a  fair  one,  at  least,  then  we  must  have 
ue  right  to  call  every  man  or  corporation  that  is  charged  with 
lying  money  into  that  fund,  this  so-called  jack  pot,  to  show  that 
ey  did  not  put  any  such  money  in  there,  otherwise  we  can  not 
lake  our  defense  here  and  must  grope  around  in  the  dark  until  we 
id  all  the  parties  charged  with  having  put  money  in  that  fund, 
liicli  White  says  resulted  in  the  payment  to  him  of  $1,900,  and  show 
r  them  that  they  did  not  put  it  in  to  in  any  way  influence  the  election 

<  Senator  Lorimer  to  the  United  States  Senate,  but  did  pay  it  in 
r  another  purpose.  And  then  we  must  call  the  different  members  of 
;  e  legislature  for  the  purpose  of  showing  by  them — and  that  means 
eery  member  of  the  legislature,  the  53  Democrats  who  voted  for 
1m  and  the  55  Republicans  who  voted  for  him,  and  all  the  others, 
hiking  204  altogether,  or  203  at  the  time  of  the  election  of  United 

ates  Senator.  One  was  then  dead,  I  think,  and  3  or  4  have  since 
'ed.  Three  of  them  are  now  dead  and  those  are  all  Democrats. 
11  the  living  must  be  called  if  they  can  be  reached,  and,  as  I  say, 
lis  would  be  an  interminable  affair.  We  must  send  out  to  every 
matorial  district  throughout  this  State,  and  we  must  get  those  men 
i  here,  and.  in  addition  to  that  we  must  search  out  and  find  the 
ien  who  paid  money  into  the  fund,  from  which  this  man  said  he 
}>t  $900  as  his  distributive  share  in  St.  Louis  from  Mr.  Wilson  or 
mebody  else.  I  submit  that  Senator  Lorimer  should  not  be  bur- 

<  ned  with  any  such  a  duty,  and  I  submit  that  the  gentlemen  who 

in  the  United  States  Senate  to-day  should  not  be  burdened  by  an 
^ablishment  of  a  principle  of  this  kind  and  be  compelled  to  estab- 
l  h  their  innocence  in  order  that  they  may  rid  themselves  of  the 
Mirch  that  creatures  like  White  may  cast  upon  them  that  may  be 
Istered  and  given  credit  by  a  committee  such  as  sit  here. 

Mr.  Ausr  rniAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  be  very  brief  in  replying, 
tidge  Hanecy’s  argument  is  one  of  convenience.  He  is  trying  to 


\ 

78  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

N 

impress  the  committee  as  to  the  convenience  of  the  testimony  and  not 
as  to  its  legal  application.  I  want  to  make  one  proposition,  and  I 
want  to  make  it  clear,  and  that  is  this:  You  are  investigating  the; 
question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer  was 
brought  about  by  the  use  of  corrupt  methods  or  practices.  Senator 
Lorimer  may  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  use  of  corrupt  methods 
or  practices,  but  that  does  not  change  the  thing  one  iota.  As  has 
been  freQuentlv  held,  and  as  is  the  law  when  it  is  clear  that  bribery 
or  corrupt  practices  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  the  candidate,  whc 
are  conducting  his  canvass,  funds  are  obtained  for  him  without  which 
he  would  not  have  had  a  majority,  his  election  should  be  annulled 
although  proof  is  lacking  that  he  knew  of  the  bribery  or  corrupt 
practices.  They  must  start  with  that  as  a  fundamental  principle  ol 
law  upon  which  this  hearing  is  based,  because  it  is  a  rule  ot  law 
adopted  by  the  United  States  Senate  for  over  fifty  years. 

Starting  with  that  as  a  premise,  was  Senator  Loiimei  elected  t< 
the  United  States  Senate  by  the  use  of  corrupt  methods  or  corrup: 
practices?  We  will  endeavor  to  show  by  evidence  from  this  witnes. 
stand  that  more  than  enough  votes  were  obtained  by  corrupt  method; 
and  practices,  which,  if  they  had  not  been  obtained  in  that  wav,  woulc[ 
have  defeated  Senator  Lorimer’s  election.  In  other  words,  the  burden 
is  upon  us  to  show  that  at  least  six  or  seven  votes,  whatever  the  num 
her  may  be,  -were  obtained  by  corrupt  methods  and  practices,  Iron 
bribery,  promises  of  reward,  or  otherwise.  Now,  how  can  we  do  it 
We  put  witnesses  upon  the  stand,  and  Judge  Hanecy  referred  to  on 
witness,  the  witness  Link,  for  instance,  who  suggests  that  he ;  hear. 
Senator  Lorimer  make  a  speech  on  the  deep  waterway,  and  that  h 
was  fascinated  by  the  speech,  and  was  talked  to  by  Senator  Lorime 
upon  the  subject  of  voting  for  him.  And  that  after  ,he  did  vote  fo 
him,  he  received  the  sum  of  $1,000.  There  was  no  agreement  ther 
and  there  was  no  talk  between  Mr.  Link  and  anyone,  but  the  simp  1 
fact  that  he  received  a  thousand  dollars.  Haven  t  we  got  to  establis 
the  intent  with  which  Link  voted.  The  man  Beckemeyer,  the  nes 
on  the  stand,  testified  that  he  received  $1,000  for  voting  for  Lorime: 
What  talk  did  he  have  ?  I  am  j  ust  arguing  the  testimony  in  referenc 

Senator  Paynter.  Who  handed  the  money  to  Mr.  Link . 

Mr  Austrian.  Mr.  Browne  handed  it  to  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  to  M- 
White,  and  some  others.  Mr.  Link  goes  on  the  witness  stand  and 1 
testifies  that  he  had  a  talk  and  went  home  and  was  called  to  St.  Lo 
June  23  and  was  handed  $1,000.  Then  he  was  called  back  July  1 
and  <r0t  $900.  Now,  Mr.  Link’s  transaction  upon  the  face  of  it  ma 
appear  perfectly  innocent,  and  Mr.  Beckemeyer’s  may  appear  pe 
fecUv  innocent  We  have  got  to  show  the  intent  with  which  the 
procured  it.  It  was  innocent,  if  Mr.  Link  did  Mr.  Browne  son 
great  service,  and  Mr.  Browne  being  an  affluent  man  made  him 
present  of  $1,000  after  the  legislature  adjourned,  and  then  made  hi 
a  present  of  $900.  The  evidence  will  not  show  agreements  such  . 
White  testified  to  in  every  instance,  or  any  agreement  at  all  in  son 
instances,  simply  a  request  to  vote.  Now,  to  prove  the  intent  wil 
which  the  money  was  obtained,  and  to  prove  a  system  that  was 
vogue,  is  it  not  Material  to  show  that  these  men  who  were  engaged 
obtaining  a  thousand  dollars  were  engaged  in  corrupt  practici 
Does  not  that  tend  to  prove  corrupt  methods,  a  general  conupt 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  79 

,  corrupt  system  in  vogue?  That  does  not  connect  Senator  Lorimer 
>ersonally  with  it,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  connect  him  personally 
^ith  it.  If  we  were  to  prove  that  Senator  Lorimer  himself  paid  a 
ingle  dollar  and  obtained  a  single  vote,  that  is  as  far  as  we  would 
iave  to  go,  because  the  rule  of  law  is,  that  if  you  can  connect  direct 
bribery  to  the  present  holder  of  the  seat,  that  it  is  immaterial  whether 
r  not  he  obtained  any  votes  by  reason  thereof  or  not,  but  where  you 
o  not  connect  him  directly  with  it,  you  must  show  the  influence  of 
otes  enough  to  take  away  his  apparent  majority.  Now,  therefore, 
dien  we  bring  Mr.  Link  in  and  bring  Mr.  Beckemeyer  and  others  in, 
7e  must  prove  generally  the  intent  with  reference  to  each  one. 
udge  Hanecy  says,  to  make  an  agreement  that  no  intent  was  neces- 
iry ;  that  he  made  an  absolutely  corrupt  agreement.  I  will  say  to 
ou  there  are  others  who  have  no  agreement  whatever,  and  Judire 
lanecy  knows  it,  as  he  has  read  the  testimony  in  the  Browne  case, 
nd  we  all  know  it.  And  I  say  to  you  further  that  when  Judge 
Tanecy  made  the  statement  that  this  testimony  was  excluded  in  the 
>rowne  case,  he  was  mistaken.  I  will  read  you  some  of  the  testi- 
lonv  in  that  case  (reading)  : 

Q.  What  did  you  receive  from  Mr.  Wilson?— A.  Nine  hundred  dollars  at  this 
leeting  at  St.  Louis — was  called  the  “  jack  pot.” 

Q.  What  did  you  receive  from  Wilson? — A.  Nine  hundred  dollars. 

Q.  What  denomination? — A.  One-hundred  dollar  bills. 

Q.  Where  did  you  receive  it? — A.  In  his  bath  room,  in  his  room. 

Q.  Who  went  into  the  bath  room  first? — A.  Mr.  Sheppard. 

Q.  Mr.  Sheppard  was  called  in  first.  When  you  were  called  in  he  handed  vou 
)00? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then? — A.  I  put  it  in  my  pocket. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  was  on  the  second  trial. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes ;  but  it  is  immaterial ;  we  are  all  bound  by  it.  If 
1  every  instance,  every  member  of  the  legislature  who  was  put  upon 
le  stand  would  say,  “  Yes,  I  was  bribed,  I  am  a  criminal,”  it  would 
ot  be  necessary  to  prove  anything  of  the  kind.  But  I  say  to  you 
udge  Hanecy  knows  it,  he  has  referred  to  the  vote,  and  he  says  that 
(r.  Link  voted  for  him  on  account  of  the  deep  waterway  and  that 
eckemeyer  voted  for  him  on  account  of  the  deep  waterway,  but  I 
ant  to  say  to  you,  that  they  voted  for  him  because  they  obtained 
oney  for  voting  for  him.  It  is  for  you  to  determine,  after  hearing 
le  evidence,  whether  or  not  this  throws  any  light  whatsoever  upon 
enator  Lorimer’s  election.  Just  one  thing  further,  irrespective  of 
itent.  General  design  is  always  competent.  It  is  always  admissible 
5  corroborating  the  main  fact.  It  tends  to  establish  the  main  fact, 
udge  Hanecy  made  some  reference,  and  I  deem  it  only  fair  to  reply 

>  it,  in  reference  to  the  publication  in  the  Tribune  about  what  some 
itness  would  testify  to.  That  story  was  printed  in  every  newspaper 

>  Chicago,  and  was  telegraphed  from  Springfield,  and  did  not 
rtanate  from  any  conversation  had  with  this  subcommittee  and  our- 
lves.  No  information  that  was  communicated  to  me  by  the  sub- 
>mmittee  and  no  argument  or  conversation  had  was  even  disclosed 

me  to  my  client.  It  would  not  have  been  proper,  and  I  think 
iat  story  was  not  written  by  Mr.  O’Loughlin  or  any  member  of  the 
ribune  staff. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  Itecord  Herald  denied  it  this  morning. 

.  t  t  *  ud,  c  Hanecy  seems  to  have  the  power  ol  second 
ght.  He  says  that  II.  B.  Murray  denies  that  story,  and  he  is  one 


80  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

of  the  witnesses  whom  I  have  asked  this  committee  to  subpoena  and 
yon  will  know  whether  or  not  he  denies  it.  If  the  story  is  not  true 
it  will  be  proven  untrue.  I  have  no  concern  in  whether  Mr.  Murray 
denies  that  story  or  not.  It  was  unnecessary  to  say  he  denied  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  was  informed  that  Mr.  Murray  telegraphed 
another  newspaper  that  he  never  made  such  a  statement.  I  have 
not  brought  any  authorities  here  upon  this  question.  I  knew  that  at 
least  five  members  of  this  committee  were  lawyers.  I  did  not  know 
that  this  question  would  arise,  and  I  am  not  prepared  at  this  time  to 
cite  authorities  in  opposition  to  those  cited  by  Mr.  Austrian,  but 
the  doctrine  is  pretty  well  settled,  I  think,  that  you  can  not  prove  a 
man  guilty  of  one  crime  by  proving  that  he  committed  some  other 
similar  crime  on  some  other  occasion  even  as  against  the  man  who  is 
being  tried ;  but  that  is  not  the  case  here.  These  acts  that  they  are 
attempting  to  charge  Senator  Lorimer  with  inferentially  are  acts 
that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with,  but  that  somebody  else  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  do  not  contend  that  he  had  anything  to  de 
with  it.  If  you  should  prove  that  I  bribed  53  members  of  the  legis¬ 
lature  and  was  a  second  cousin  of  Senator  Lorimer  and  never  talkec 
with  him,  but  gave  each  member  of  the  legislature  $10,000  to  vote 
for  Senator  Lorimer,  and  53  of  them  did  vote  for  him,  that  tha> 

would  not  vacate  the  seat.  That  is  not  the  law. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  didn’t  say  it  was,  and  you  need  not  even  be  i 

cousinof  Senator  Lorimer.  .  ,,  , 

(The  committee  here  retired  for  deliberation,  and  upon  the  retun 

of  the  committee  the  following  proceedings  were  had :) 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  the  witness  White  present?  It  so,  he  cai 

take  the  witness  stand. 

Whereupon  the  witness  Charles  A.  White,  upon  being  furthe 
examined  by  Mr.  Austrian,  testified  as  follows:  9 

Senator  Burrows.  What  was  the  question  you  proposed  to  him  5 

Mr.  Austrian  (reading)  : 

State  wliat  took  place  when  you  met  Mr.  Wilson  in  the  Southern  Hotel  tha 
day. 

That  was  the  preliminary  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  purpose  of  that  question  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  expect  the  witness  will  answer  that  by  stating  tha 

he  was  paid  $900  by  Mr.  Wilson  that  dav. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  permit  that  question  to  L 
put  and  the  answer  you  say  he  will  make,  that  he  received  $900,  wit 
the  understanding,  of  course,  that  the  committee  will  give  it  jus 
such  consideration  as  it  deserves.  And  we  want  it  also  understoo 
that  this  is  not  to  be  gone  into  as  a  precedent  that  we  will  perm 
o-eneral  testimony  touching  the  jack  pot— the  whole  question  ot  ti 

jack  pot — we  will  allow  this  witness,  however,  to  state - 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  statement  made  by  Judge  Hanecy  was  th; 
we  wanted  to  show  the  source  of  the  jack  pot;  we  have  no  such  o 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  allow  the  question  to  1 

answered.  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  claim  they  want  to  go  into  it.  I  said 

the  jack  pot  was  gone  into,  that  we  must  insist  upon  going  into  the 
other  things. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER,  81 

i  j 

Senator  Burrows.  We  all  understand  that  your  motion  is  pending 
o  strike  it  out  if,  in  the  judgment  of  the  committee,  it  is  not  material. 

Q.  Now  state  what  took  place  when  you  met  Mr.  Wilson  in  the 
Southern  Hotel  ? — A.  He  invited  me  into  the  bathroom. 

Q.  What  bathroom  ? — A.  In  his  room  in  the  hotel. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  his  room  in  the  hotel  when  you  entered  the 
iotel? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  in  his  room  when  you  entered  his  room  ? — A.  Why,  Mr. 
ink,  Mr.  Clark,  Mr.  Sheppard,  and  myself  and  Mr.  Luke  went  in 
ogether. 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson  was  there,  or  did  he  go  in  with  you? — A.  He  was 
here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Was  all  this  done  in  the  bathroom? — A.  In  his 
oom  in  the  hotel. 

Q.  Mr.  Luke,  Mr.  Link,  Mr.  Sheppard,  Mr.  Clark,  and  the  Wilson 
ou  refer  to  were  all  Democratic  members  of  the  house,  were  thev 
ot? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  will  you  state  what  took  place  after  you  got  into 
Ir.  Wilson’s  room? — A.  After  some  talk  there,  Mr.  Wilson  invited 
fr.  Sheppard  into  the  bathroom.  Mr.  Sheppard  went  into  the  bath- 
oom  and  came  out,  and  after  he  came  out  he  invited  me  into  the 
>athroom.  I  went  into  the  bathroom,  and  he  counted  nine  one 
undred  dollar  bills  into  my  hand,  and  said  that  was  all  of  it,  and 
e  was  glad  to  be  relieved  of  the  burden. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  could  not  understand  what  you  said. 

The  Witness.  He  counted  nine  one  hundred  dollar  bills  into  my 
and  and  told  me  that  was  all  of  it,  and  that  he  was  glad  to  be 
elieved  of  the  burden.  He  said  that  Mr.  Browne  was  sick,  and  he 
ad  to  come  down  for  Mr.  Browne. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then ;  did  you  remain  in  Mr.  Wilson’s  room 
r  did  you  leave? — A.  I  remained  in  Mr.  Wilson’s  room  until  such 
ime  as  he  was  ready  to  go  to  the  depot. 

Q.  Did  any  other  member  of  the  legislature  who  was  then  present 
a  the  room,  whose  names  you  have  detailed,  go  into  the  bathroom 
fter  you  came  out  with  Mr.  Wilson  ? — A.  Mr. — I  stated  a  moment  ago 
liat  Mr.  Sheppard  was  called  in  just  before  I  was,  didn’t  I? 

Q.  I  think  you  did. — A.* I  was  called  in  after  Mr.  Sheppard;  no 
ne  else  went  in  there  that  I  saw  or  know  of. 

Q.  They  were  there  at  the  hotel  when  you  got  there,  or  did  they 
o  with  you? — A.  They  were  there  at  the  hotel. 

Q.  They  were  there  when  you  got  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  to  recur  a  moment,  at  the  time  you  say  that  Browne 
aid  you  this  $850  in  the  Briggs  House  on  this  day  in  June,  did  he 
tate  anything  with  reference  to  the  amount  of  money  he  had  and 
hat  he  was  about  to  do  with  it? — A.  Mr.  Browne,  on  the  morning 
e  paid  me  the  $850,  had  a  belt  about  his  waist  that  was  made  of 
lue  cloth  and  pinned  on  with  safety  pins.  I  remarked  at  the  time 
aat  he  ought  to  be  careful  going  about  with  so  much  money  on  him. 
didn’t  know  there  was  money  in  the  belt  at  that  time.  The  reply 
e  made — he  remarked  by  saying  he  had  it  in  a  book,  in  his  book 
lie  day  before  and  was  standing  on  the  street  and  that  a  man  had 
rushed  up  against  him  and  looked  around  as  though  he  was  angry, 
ut  if  the  man  had  known  that  there  was  $30,000  in  the  book  he 

70024°— s.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 6 


82  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

would  not  be  so  anxious  to  look  angry.  That  was  his  remark  in 

reference  to  that.*  .  n 

Q  Did  Mr.  Browne  at  any  time  say  anything  to  you  with  reference 

to  the  amount  of  money  he  was  receiving  as  compared  with  the 
amount  of  money  the  other  members  of  the  legislature  were  receiv¬ 
ing  ?_A.  He  didn’t  say  how  much;  he  told  me  that  he  ought  to  have 
more  than  the  other  members,  but  he  could  not  tell  he  said  this 
wav,  he  says,  “I  can’t  tell  some  of  the  fellows  that,  but  I  ought 
to  have  more  than  some  of  the  other  members,  because  I  run  greater 

chances  and  take  more  risks.”  .  ,  T  1  m  1  nun„* 

Q.  Mr.  White,  did  you  ever  have  any  talk  with  Joseph  Clark  about 

his  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  ?  A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  State  what  was  said?— A.  I  met  Mr.  Clark  here  m  Chicago 
last  summer,  and  I  met  him  on  the  boat,  Pere  Marquette ,  on  the  way 

to  Waukegan.  ,  , .  , 

Q.  He  is  the  same  Joseph  S.  Clark  who  was  a  Democratic  member 

of  the  house  ?— A.  Yes,  sir.  Mr.  Clark  had  Ins  wife  with  him  on  that 
trip,  and  I  had  one  of  my  brothers  and  a  cousin  of  mine  with  me. 
When  I  run  into  Mr.  Clark  suddenly  on  the  boat  we  went  down  stairs 
in  the  beer  garden  and  sat  down  to  a  table  and  had  a  little  conver¬ 
sation.  Mr.  Clark  was  not  satisfied  with  the  amount  of  money  he 
had  received  from  Mr.  Wilson  in  St.  Louis  as  coming  from  Browne. 

He  told  me  at  that  time -  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  the  summing  up,  and  ask  that  the  wit¬ 
ness  be  required  to  state  what  the  gentleman  said  without  giving  his 

y  of  it 

^Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  will  do  that.  State  what  oc- 
curred. — A.  He  told  me  that  he  had  written  Mr.  Browne  a  letter 
telling  Browne  that  he  was  not  satisfied.  He  told  me  then  that  lie 
expected  to  come  back  in  a  few  days.  The  night  before  that  I  met 
him  here,  and  he  went  down  on  the  Cincinnati,  Dayton  and  fronton 
train,  and  I  went  on  the  same  train  he  went  on.  I  had  intended  tc 
go  on  another  road,  but  met  him  on  that  train.  We  sat  on  the  obser¬ 
vation  end  of  the  train  and  talked  going  down.  He  told  me  in  the 
conversation  there  that  Mr.  Link  would  have  voted  for  Senator  Lori¬ 
mer  for  $500,  but  that  he  got  Link  to  hold  out,  and  by  their  holding 
out,  they  got  $1,000  apiece.  That  is  what  Mr.  Clark  told  me. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  move  that  that  be  stricken  out  especially  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  hearsay,  what  he  said  to  Mr.  Clark  or  what  Mr 
Clark  said  to  him.  We  would  get  into  all  kinds  of  ramifications  anc 

complications  upon  this  hearsay  testimony 

Senator  Gamble.  Was  Mr.  Clark  a  member  of  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  Mr.  Link  was  not  present . 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir ;  but  Mr.  Clark  was.  .. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  can  not  cross-examine  Mr.  Clark  on  this,  anc 
we  can  not  cross-examine  anybody  because  he  is  telling  now  w ha 
somebody  told  him— Mr.  Clark  told  him— that  is  hearsay  evidence 

pure  and  simple.  ,  ,  ., 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Clark  is  a  competent  witness. 

Austrian.  Yes;  and  he  has  been  subpoenaed,  but  suppose 

says  it  is  not  so.  ,  .  • 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  thinks  the  proposed  testimony  i 

not  material. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  83 


Mr.  Austrian.  The  law  is  all  one  way,  I  think,  and  I  would  like 
to  cite  one  or  two  authorities.  In  every  election  case  the  question  has 
arisen,  and  it  has  in  every  case  been  held  to  be  competent.  That  is, 
because  there  is  no  such  thing  as  parties,  it  is  an  investigation  as  to 
corrupt  methods  and  practices.  I  will  read  from  the  Clark  case 
(reading)  : 

Q.  Mr.  Cooney,  you  will  understand  you  are  to  state  what  was  said  to  you; 
if  Mr.  Flynn  said  anything  to  you  about  methods  when  he  was  a  member  of 
the  legislature  that  would  be  likely  to  influence  votes  you  can  state  what  he 
said,  according  to  your  best  recollection  now. 

The  Chairman.  Anything  that  Mr.  Flynn  said  to  him.  Mr.  Flynn  is  shown 
to  have  changed  his  vote.  Now  the  suggestion  appears  to  be  possible  that  he 
may  have  been  influenced  to  change  it,  that  is  what  we  are  investigating.  He 
is  going  to  state  what  Mr.  Flynn  said  to  him  about  the  methods  to  be  used  to 
influence  his  vote.  We  can’t  tell  what  that  is  until  we  hear  it. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  Unfortunately  Mr.  Flynn  is  dead  now. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  where  a  member  of  the  legislature  who  had 
the  conversation  is  dead  (continues  reading)  ; 

The  Chairman.  I  am  sorry  for  that. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  It  is  hearsay  evidence  entirely. 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  Mr.  Flynn  had  said  that  he  had  been  corrupted  by 
Mr.  Clark’s  agents,  would  it  not  have  been  evidence? 

Mr.  Faulkner.  I  don’t  think  so  in  any  sense  at  all,  unless  he  is  shown  to  have 
ieen  the  agent  of  Mr.  Clark  in  some  way. 

Mr.  Foster.  The  law  is  directly  to  the  contrary  in  England,  Mr.  Chairman, 
tie  was  a  member  of  the  legislature. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  We  do  not  insist  upon  the  point. 

The  Chairman.  Go  on. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  in  the  Clark  case,  and  I  read  from  page  706 
if  the  Clark  record.  During  the  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Butler  he 
vas  asked  as  to  what  Mr.  Cooney,  a  member  of  the  legislature,  had 
old  him  about  the  use  of  money,  and  following  this  occurred: 

Mr.  Butler.  I  have  been  offered  money  myself. 

Mr.  Faulkner.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  must  protest  against  the  witness  telling 
vhat  members  of  the  legislature  said  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  basis  of  the  question? 

Mr.  Faulkner.  This  is  a  part  of  the  conversation  we  are  getting  at  from  both 
vitnesses,  and  that  is  the  very  thing  we  are  objecting  to. 

The  Chairman.  The  testimony  has  been  admitted  to  show  his  experience  in 
•btaining  votes  by  money. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  case  is  full  of  that.  Here  we  have  two  wit- 
lesses  called,  a  member  of  the  legislature,  Mr.  Cooney,  who  testified 
o  a  conversation  with  one  of  the  members  of  the  legislature,  and  Mr. 
Sutler  confirms  it. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  that  is  entirely  competent. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Tool,  on  page  154  of  the  Clark  case  the  same 
[uestion  was  asked  (reading)  : 

Mr.  Campbell.  Do  you  remember  of  having  met  Mr.  McLaughlin  during  the 
ession  of  the  legislature? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  do. 

Mr.  Campbell.  I)o  you  remember  of  having  a  talk  with  him  at  that  time? _ 

L.  I  do. 

Q.  About  the  senatorial  election? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  it? — A.  In  the  barroom  of  the  Queen  Hotel. 

Q.  Who  was  this  conversation  with?— A.  Mr.  McLaughlin,  a  member  of  the 
egislature. 

Q.  Who  was  present  at  the  time?— A.  Nobody  but  Mr.  McLaughlin  and  mv- 

elf. 


84  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr  Austrian.  He  was  a  member  of  the  legislature.  That  was 
objected  to  and  it  was  held  to  be  competent  That  was  objected  to 
upon  the  ground  that  a  statement  made  by  Mr.  McLaughlin,  he  be¬ 
ing  a  member  of  the  legislature,  whose  vote  was  being  investigated 
in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Clark,  was  not  evidence  against  Mr.  Clark,  and 
is  immaterial,  incompetent,  and  hearsay.  [Reading.] 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  the  man  said  he  had  been  bribed,  would  it  be  com¬ 
petent  to  show  that,  unless  Mr.  Clark  was  present  when  it  took  place 

Mr  Foster  Yes,  sir;  it  has  been  held  so  over  and  over  again  by  the  court, 

The°CH airman. ^he'sta^emeirt  ZZ affect  the  validity  of  Mr.  McLaughlins 
vote  It  might  not  prove  that  Senator  Clark  knew  of  the  bribery,  but  it  would 
Iffert  the  vllidity  of  the  McLaughlin  vote.  It  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  con¬ 
victing  Mr.  Clark,  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  Mr.  McLaughlin  had 

given  a  corrupt  vote. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  with  reference  to  the  adjudicated  cases  out¬ 
side  of  the  Senate  cases,  the  law  is  all  one  way,  and  it  is  for  the  rea¬ 
son  that  this  is  not  a  trial  in  which  Senator  Lorimer  was  a  party. 
This  is  an  investigation,  and  there  are  no  parties,  lou  are  simply 
inquiring  as  to  whether  or  not  corrupt  methods  were  used  to  in¬ 
fluence  White’s  vote  or  Clark’s  vote,  and  the  declarations  of  Clark 
are  iust  as  admissible  as  statements  made  by  this  witness  or  what 
Browne  told  him  when  he  paid  him  the  money,  when  Browne  made 
the  agreement  with  him.  That  is  hearsay,  you  can  cross-examine 
Browne  when  he  comes  here  upon  it,  as  to  what  Mr.  Clark  said  to 
him,  supposing  he  and  Clark  had  entered  into  that  agreement  in¬ 
stead  of  Browne  and  White.  .  .  .  ,  „ 

Senator  Paynter.  If  no  members  of  the  legislature  had  been 

bought  at  all,  if  any  one  wanted  a  Senator  unseated,  they  mig i  ge 
people  to  make  affidavits  or  .give  testimony  and  deceive  the  com¬ 
mittee  into  unseating  a  member  that  has  been  voted  for.  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  Without  any  opportunity  to  cross-examine  th< 

mMr.  Austrian.  We  have  subpoenaed  Mr.  Clark,  and  every  mai 
whose  name  has  been  referred  to  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  YY  lute. 
Senator  Burrows.  Why  not  call  Mr.  Clark  i 

Mr.  Austrian.  Am  I  bound  by  their  testimony  .  ,  ,  , 

Senator  Paynter.  Suppose  Mr.  White,  on  the  witness  stand  shouk 
say  that  ten  men  or  seven  men  or  whatever  it  is,  that  he  would  testi  . 
t o\his  committee  that  seven  of  the  members  of  the  legislature  whj 
voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  had  confessed  to  him  that  they  had  eacl 
received  a  thousand  dollars,  would  you  ask  this  committee  upon  tha 

testimony  to  unseat  him  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir;  that  is  but  one  circumstance.  But  sup 
nose  I  show  that  this  very  man  Clark  or  some  other  man,  whos 
name  I  need  not  mention  now,  admitted  that  he  got  a  thousan 
dollars  Suppose  I  follow  that  up  by  showing  that  this  man  wa 
antagonistic  to  Senator  Lorimer  May  25,  1909,  he  came  out  strong! 
in  favor  of  Senator  Lorimer ;  and  suppose  I  show  that  that  man  wa 
in  the  bathroom  at  the  same  time  he  was  and  got  a  thousand  dollai 

at  the  same  time  he  did.  .  ...  ,  .  . a11  ^ 

Senator  Paynter.  In  Kentucky  a  man  is  not  permitted  to  tell  ho 

he  votes,  because  it  is  possible  for  a  man  to  deprive  another  of  h 
vote.  Before  I  can  consent  to  any  such  a  doctrine  as  that,  I  woul 
like  to  read  the  cases  and  see  the  reasons  they  give. 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  85 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  the  books  here,  and  I  would  be  glad  to 
put  them  anywhere  you  say  and  leave  them  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  For  the  time  being  that  testimony  will  be 

excluded. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  wish  before  ruling  upon  that  you  would  permit 
me  to  state  to  you  the  cases  I  have,  because  it  is  very  important.  I 
do  not  want  anything  that  is  not  the  law. 

Senator  Paynter.  Withdraw  the  question  and  go  ahead  with 
some  other  line  of  examination,  and  not  insist  upon  it  now  and  leave 
it  for  examination. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  house  has  ruled  upon  it  and  the  senate  has 
ruled  upon  it,  and  the  English  cases  have  all  ruled  upon  it,  and  New 
York  and  Wisconsin  have  ruled  upon  it,  and  I  will  hand  you  the 

books. 

Senator  Burrows.  Present  the  authorities  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  be  very  glad  to.  Now? 

Senator  Burrows.  Not  now. 

Senator  Paynter.  Leave  them  so  we  can  examine  them. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  leave  them  here,  where  you  can  examine 
them.  If  you  will  read  from  page  7  to  page  26,  inclusive,  they  are 
all  cited  there.  I  have  cited  them,  and  will  leave  the  books  here. 

Judge  Hanecy.  My  motion  to  strike  out  may  be  made  again. 

'  Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  when,  for  the  first  time,  did  you  disclose  the  trans¬ 
actions  to  which  you  have  testified  here  to  anyone? — A.  I  disclosed, 
I  think,  the  same  night  of  Mav  24th  that  I  had  the  first  conversation. 

Q.  When  thereafter  ?— A.  f  told  a  number  of  people  in  East  St. 
Louis  the  following  September  and  October,  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  When  did  you — did  you  ever  write  what  took  place  with  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  subject-matter  which  you  have  here  testified  to? — A. 
i  €S  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  write?— A.  I  started,  I  think,  in  September. 

Q.  What  year? — A.  1909. 

Q.  About  when  did  you  complete  it?— A.  I  completed  that  after 
the  special  session  of  1909  or  1910;  I  added  to  it  from  time  to  time 

as  long  as  it  was  in  my  possession.  _ 

Q.  When  did  you  first  go  to  the  Chicago  Tribune  with  this  story  ?— 
A.  I  think  it  was  in  March.  I  sent  the  manuscript  down  to  New 
York  City,  and  I  think  it  came  back  about  the  1st  of  March,  and  some 
time  in  March  I  went  to  the  Chicago  Tribune. 

Q.  Who  sent  you  to  the  Chicago  Tribune? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that  as  hearsay,  unless  it  was  Senator 
Lorimer  that  told  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  body  sent  him  there. 
Q.  Did  somebody  send  you  to  the  Chicago  Tribune? — A.  I  was 
told  to  go  there  by  Mr.  Wright. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Strike  out  “  Mr.  Wright.” 

Q.  Answer  the  question,  did  somebody  tell  you  to  go  there?— A. 
Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Who? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit  this  is  competent.  Of  course,  it  has  been 
contended,  and  it  has  been  heard  in  Senator  Lorimer’s  speech,  and 
that  is  a  part  of  this  record,  and  the  statements  of  counsel  to  the 


86  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


committee  that  the  story  is  one  of  recent  fabrication,  that  it  is  per¬ 
fectly  competent  to  introduce  the  declarations  made  by  the  witness 
himself  on  or  about  the  time  the  offense  is  alleged  to  have  occurred.  I 
have  here  the  Fourteenth  Illinois,  and  a  number  of  cases  I  have  here, 
and  the  authorities  all  agree  that  the  statement  of  a  witness  made 
under  some  circumstances  may  be  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  sus¬ 
taining  his  testimony  as  where  he  is  charged  with  deceiving  under  the 
influence  of  some  motive  prompting  him  to  make  a  false  statement ;  it 
may  be  shown  that  he  made  similar  statements  at  a  time  when  the 
imputed  motive  did  not  exist,  or  when  motives  of  interest  would  have 
induced  him  in  making  such  statements.  That  is  the  Fourteenth 
Illinois,  4G8.  The  Two  hundred  and  ninth  Illinois,  page  287 ;  in  that 
case  they  say  : 

As  a  general  rule,  proof  of  statements  made  by  a  witness  out  of  court  harmon¬ 
izing  with  his  testimony  are  inadmissible ;  but  where  it  is  charged  that  a  story 
is  all  fabrication,  or  that  he  has  some  motive  to  testify  falsely,  proof  that  he 
gave  a  similar  account  of  the  transaction  when  the  motive  did  not  exist  or 
before  the  effect  of  the  account  could  be  foreseen,  is  admissible. 

Senator  Gamble.  Would  this  be  admissible  at  this  stage? 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  have  the  statement  of  counsel  that  his  testi¬ 
mony  was  purchased,  that  it  is  of  recent  fabrication,  the  machinations 
of  a  diseased  mind,  etc.,  and  I  recall  that  counsel  has  made  statements 
frequently  that  his  testimony  was  purchased  and  was  untrue  and 
would  be  attacked.  Counsel  made  that  statement  to-day  and  he 
made  it  the  other  day. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  desire  to  tell  what  took  place  in  any 
executive  session,  and  that  is  just  what  Mr.  Austrian  is  doing.  The 
statement  was  made  a  few  days  ago  that  this  witness  swore  on  two 
other  occasions  that  he  sold  this  testimony  for  $3,500 — $3,250  for  it  and 
$250  for  expenses — and  the  admission  was  made  by  Mr.  Austrian, 
I  think,  that  it  was  $3,750. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Counsel  stated  that  he  had  a  photographic  copy 
of  the  contract,  showing  that  his  testimony  had  been  purchased. 

Senator  Bulkeley.  Not  here  to-dav. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  was  in  the  application  for  a  continuance. 

Senator  Gamble.  He  may  not  carry  his  charge  into  execution,  he 
may  abandon  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  carries  it  into  execution  where  he  says  he  will 
cross-examine  them,  and  show  he  made  statements  out  of  court  by 
admissions  to  other  people,  and  show  his  testimony  is  untrue.  He 
made  that  statement  to-day. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  does  not  justify  taking  the  testimony  out  of 
order. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  order  in  this  investiga¬ 
tion;  but  it  is  a  self-serving  declaration,  if  you  want  to  call  it  such, 
and  the  rule  is  that  self-serving  declarations  can  not  be  introduced 
except  where  it  is  claimed  that  the  story  now  told  is  a  recent  fabrica¬ 
tion  or  that  he  has  motives,  or  that  it  was  purchased  or  something 
of  that  kind.  That  is  the  only  exception  to  the  rule  where  you  can 
put  in  the  declarations  made  by  a  witness  himself  to  substantiate 
his  story.  He  says  they  bought  the  story  the  30th  of  April,  1910. 
Counsel  made  that  statement — that  they  published  it  the  30th  day  of 
April  and  purchased  it  some  time  before,  and  he  says  he  has  a  photo¬ 
graphic  copy  of  it. 


investigation  of  charges  against  william  lorimer.  87 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  have  the  original  contract  that  this  man  swore 
le  signed,  and  when  we  offer  that - 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  contract  will  be  offered  by  me.  On  the  30th  of 
4pril  this  contract  was  made;  there  is  no  dispute  about  that.  He 
says  that  it  was  purchasable  evidence;  that  it  was  corrupt.  He  did 
not  say  it  in  so  many  words;  he  says  he  has  a  motive,  and  Senator 
Lorimer  in  his  speech,  which  is  a  part  of  this  record,  charges  that  this 
:estimony  was  created  by  reason  of  an  unlawful  conspiracy  entered 
into  between  this  man  and  the  Tribune  and  other  parties  whose 
names  I  need  not  mention.  And  they  furthermore  charge  that  the 
story  was  not  written  by  White  but  was  written  by  a  lawyer,  or 
ivery  word  passed  on  by  a  lawyer.  I  can  show  under  that  state  of 
facts,  which  is  a  part  of  the  record  in  this  case,  that  he  made  state- 
nents  months  and  months  before  he  ever  sold  his  story,  as  counsel 
put  it,  or  before  he  ever  made  a  statement  to  the  Tribune  or  anybody 
ilse,  that  he  wrrote  this  admission  of  his  own  crime  months  before  it 
vas  ever  taken  up  and  published  by  the  Tribune.  As  the  supreme 
jourt  of  Massachusetts  said  in  the  Seventy-sixth  Massachusetts  or 
Tenth  Gray,  page  489 : 

The  decision  of  the  point  raised  in  this  case  is  not  to  be  understood  as  con¬ 
victing  with  the  class  of  cases  in  which  the  witness  is  said  to  be  impeached  by 
Toss-examination  or  independent  evidence  tending  to  show  that  at  the  time 
ie  gave  his  evidence  he  was  under  strong  bias,  or  in  such  a  situation  as  to  put 
aim  under  a  sort  of  moral  duress  to  testify  in  a  particular  manner.  In  such 
?ases  it  is  competent  to  rebut  the  testimony  of  such  witnesses  or  support  the 
credit  of  the  witness  by  showing  that  he  was  under  no  such  bias  or  when  he 
vas  free  from  any  influence  or  pressure  that  he  made  statements  similar  to 
hose  which  he  has  given  at  the  trial. 

When  under  no  influence  and  when  he  had  not  received  any  money 
)r  promise  of  reward  he  made  similar  statements.  Again,  in  Cal- 
fornia  the  same  rule  is  adhered  to.  It  is  the  law  and  there  is  no 
*ule  against  it,  where  it  is  contended  that  a  witness’s  statement  is  of 
"ecent  fabrication  or  he  has  a  motive  or  the  payment  of  money,  you 
*an  show  that  when  he  was  not  under  duress  or  being  rewarded,  he 
nade  similar  statements.  We  propose  to  show  he  did  not  know  the 
Tribune  when  he  wrote  this  story.  We  propose  to  show  the  story 
is  written  is  the  same  story  he  has  told  us  upon  the  witness  stand. 
Aliy  ?  That  does  not  eliminate  the  fact  that  his  evidence  is  clear  by 
•eason  of  money  being  paid  to  him  by  some  one.  Suppose  I  show, 
Mr.  Chairman,  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  he  expects  to 
show  by  Mr.  Browne  himself  that  he  asked  Browne  to  come  and 
lelp  him  expose  corruption  in  the  legislature.  Does  not  that  tend  to 
gainsay  the  charge  of  conspiracy  made  by  Senator  Lorimer  against 
his  man  in  the  Chicago  Tribune?  Does  not  that  tend  to  lend  credit 
o  his  statement  in  view  of  the  statement  made  by  counsel  that  it  is 
if  recent  fabrication,  concocted  and  conceived  and  born  and  given 
itterance  only  in  the  Chicago  Tribune,  because  it  purchased  it?  It  is 
ine  of  those  self-serving  declarations  that  every  case  in  the  books 
iolds  are  proper,  and  I  would  like  to  have  counsel  produce  one  case 
ipon  this  proposition. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  adheres  to  its  decision  that  the 
;estimony  is  not  competent  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  White - 

Judge  Hanecy.  Just  a  minute.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  motion  to 
strike  out  will  be  sustained,  will  it? 


88  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  did  not  answer  it;  there  is  nothing  to  strike 
out. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  was  not  answered. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  thought  he  did  tell  what  he  said  to  some  parties, 
and  he  was  going  on  further  with  it  when  I  objected. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  he  did,  it  may  be  stricken  out. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Very  well ;  that  is  all  I  desire. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  now  12  minutes  to  5.  Would 
you  mind  adjourning  just  twelve  minutes  ahead  of  time? 

Senator  Paynter.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question.  Do  any  of  these 
cases  to  which  you  have  called  the  committee’s  attention  hold  that  a 
voter  could  confess  that  he  had  received  a  bribe? 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  some  of  my  cases,  yes;  but  I  would  not  be  sure 
about  that.  I  think  so,  but  I  vTould  not  be  positive.  In  think  in 
the  case  cited  by  Senator  Hoar,  I  think  that  very  question  was  passed 
upon,  but  I  would  not  be  sure  about  it. 

Senator  Paynter.  These  other  questions,  stating  as  to  how  they 
voted  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  I  would  not  want  to  be  bound  by  that  state¬ 
ment,  Senator,  because  I  disremember  at  this  time;  but  I  can  refresh 
my  recollection  and  tell  you  later. 

It  is  just  ten  minutes  ahead  of  adjourning  time  now,  and  I  would 
like  to  go  over  my  notes,  if  we  may  adjourn. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  adjourn  until  to-morrow 
morning  at  10  o’clock. 

(Whereupon  an  adjournment  was  taken  until  the  following  day, 
Tuesday,  September  27,  1910,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.) 

TUESDAY,  SEPTEMBER  27,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

The  committee  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m., 
and  the  following  proceedings  were  had : 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  please  come  to  order. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
would  like  to  have  the  privilege  of  presenting  some  additional  au¬ 
thorities  on  the  question  that  we  had  under  advisement  when  we 
adjourned  last  night,  and  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  especially  to 
one  in  which  the  Senator  from  Kentucky,  I  believe,  sat  in  the  case. 
I  desire  to  cite  that  case. 

Senator  Burrows.  On  the  question  of  the  competency  of  this  tes¬ 
timony? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  of  this  testimony. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  hear  you,  briefly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  be  very  brief. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  want  to  say  to  counsel  that  whatever  they 
have  to  say  to  the  committee  on  these  various  points  should  be  as 
brief  as  possible. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes.  After  we  get  through  with  this  preliminary 
discussion  and  a  rule  of  procedure  is  laid  down,  then  I  think  there 
will  be  no  further  question  about  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Very  well;  you  may  proceed. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  89 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  not  refer  to  the  rulings  set  forth  in  the 
nemorandum,  because  I  assume  those  have  been  looked  up  by  those 
tvho  examined  the  question. 

In  the  Kentucky  case,  in  which  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  sat  as 
me  of  the  justices  of  the  supreme  court  or  the  court  of  appeals  of 
Kentucky — although  he  did  not  write  the  case  he  sat  as  one  of  the 
judges.  It  is  the  case  of  Tonks  v.  Vincent. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Will  you  give  me  the  name  of  that  once  more, 
Dlease  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Tonks  v.  Vincent,  a  decision  handed  down  on  the 
L3th  of  June,  1899,  by  the  court  of  appeals  of  Kentucky.  It  was  a 
contested-election  case,  and  it  is  found  in  the  Fifty-first  Southwest¬ 
ern  Reporter,  at  page  622. 

The  undertook  to  contest  the  election  for  some  office,  just  which 
>ffice  has  escaped  me  now,  but  it  was  county  cletfk,  I  believe — the 
county  clerk  of  Edmonson  County.  They  undertook  to  show  how 
certain  voters  had  voted  at  the  election  for  the  purpose  of  disqualify- 
ng  the  vote.  One  of  the  questions  first  discussed  was  whether  or 
lot  notice  of  the  contest  was  sufficient.  Then  we  come  to  the 
liscussion  of  a  kindred  question  to  the  one  now  under  consideration, 
t  being  borne  in  mind  by  this  committee  that  we  are  not  seeking  to 
how  how  a  voter  voted,  because  the  vote  in  Illinois  is  viva  voce  in 
he  joint  assembly,  and  it  is  not  a  secret  ballot,  and  we  are  not  under- 
aking  to  show  how  any  man  voted. 

We  are  simply  undertaking  to  show  not  whether  or  not  he  was 
(ualified  to  vote  or  whether  there  was  any  corrupt  methods  used  for 
he  purpose  of  influencing  his  vote.  On  the  question  of  whether  or 
lot  it  is  competent  to  show  under  the  Australian  ballot  system,  or 
mder  any  system  which  requires  a  secret  ballot,  how  a  voter  voted — 

!  say  that  that  really  has  no  place  in  this  discussion.  There  the 
ourt  said,  in  passing  upon  this  question : 

It  is  insisted  for  appellant,  at  the  threshold,  that  under  our  election  system 
here  can  be  no  inquiry  as  to  the  casting  of  the  legal  votes,  because  the  action 
f  the  precinct  officers  is  final.  We  can  not  think  so.  The  question  in  all 
lection  cases  is  which  candidate  has  received  the  highest  number  of  legal 
otes.  And,  except  so  far  as  the  investigations  of  judicial  tribunals  on  his 
ehalf  is  restricted  by  positive  mandate,  the  usual  and  ordinary  methods  of 
scertaining  the  truth  should  be  followed,  and,  where  it  can  be  done,  every  ide¬ 
al  vote  should  be  thrown  out.  The  two  votes  rejected  by  the  lower  court  were 
hose  of  Dick  Dunne  and  Jesse  Crawley.  The  proof  as  to  the  legality  of  each 
f  these  votes  is  conflicting,  and  we  find  no  good  reason  for  disturbing  the 
ndings  of  fact  as  certified  by  the  trial  judge.  The  preponderance  of  the  proof 
s  that  Dunne  was  not  a  resident  of  the  precinct  when  he  voted,  and  if  Crawley 
/as — which  is  doubtful — it  is  clear  he  was  under  21  years  of  age  at  that  time. 
l  more  difficult  question  is  presented  when  we  seek  to  ascertain  for  whom 
!rawley  voted.  As  to  Dunne,  there  was  no  difficulty.  His  vote  was  challenged, 
nd,  while  he  was  permitted  to  vote,  his  ballot  was  not  put  in  the  ballot  box! 
t  was  preserved  until  the  close  of  the  election  and  then  counted  for  Tonks. 

The  testimony  as  to  this  is  uncontradicted,  and  we  think  it  is  competent. 
>unne  was  an  illegal  voter,  and  the  law  as  to  the  secrecy  of  the  ballot  can  not 
•;  invoked  to  protect  his  ballot.  As  aptly  held  by  the  learned  judge  below,  an 
llegal  vote  is  no  vote,  and  if  it  gets  in  the  poll  books  and  in  the  returns  it 
hould  be  stricken  out  whenever  it  can  be  ascertained  by  sufficient  and  compe- 
ent  evidence,  and  it  should  be  taken  from  the  candidate  who  received  it  when- 
ver  that  fact  can  be  made  clearly  to  appear  by  competent  and  legal  evidence. 

Dunne  was  an  illegal  voter,  the  uncontradicted  testimony  as  to  how  he  voted 
3  competent,  and  his  vote  was  therefore  deducted  from  Tunks’s  total  vote. 
Ve  have  seen  that  Crawley  was  an  illegal  voter,  but  when  we  come  to  ascertain 


00  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


how  he  voted  an  interesting  question  is  presented.  He  was  introduced  as  a  wit¬ 
ness  for  Tunks,  and  testified  on  cross-examination  that  he  was  a  Republican, 
this  being  his  first  vote.  When  he  was  asked  for  whom  he  voted  he  expressed 
a  willingness  to  answer,  but  counsel  for  Tunks  objected  and  told  him  not  to 
answer.  He  then  declined  to  answer.  It  was  shown  by  other  testimony,  the 
competency  of  which  was  challenged,  that  he  said  before  he  voted  that  he  in¬ 
tended  to  'vote  the  Republican  ticket  except  in  one  particular,  not  important 
here,  and,  after  the  election,  that  he  had  so  voted.  Several  witnesses  so  proved, 
and  Crawley  in  no  way  contradicts  their  statements. 

We  regard  the  proof  that  the  witness  was  a  Republican  as  competent  testi¬ 
mony,  and,  further,  that  he  was  himself  a  competent  witness  to  prove  how  he 
voted!  and  might  be  compelled  to  testify  as  to  how  he  voted,  unless,  indeed,  he  de¬ 
clined  upon  the  ground  that  such  testimony  would  incriminate  himself.  Judge 
McCrary,  in  his  work  on  elections  (2d  ed.,  par.  4o<^459),  very  clearlj  laj  s  down 
this  rule  as  supported  by  the  authorities.  He  concluded  by  saying :  “  It  is  very 
clear  that  the  rule  which,  upon  grounds  of  public  policy,  protects  the  legal  voter 
aaainst  being  compelled  to  disclose  for  whom  he  voted  does  not  protect  a  person 
who  has  voted  illespllv  from  making  such  disclosure.  To  give  that  rule  this 
wide  scope  would  be  to  make  it  shield  the  right  and  the  wrong,  the  honest  and 
the  dishonest.”  The  witness  offered  to  answer  the  question  as  to  how  he  voted 
and  was  prevented  only  by  the  objection  of  Tunks;  and  this,  in  connection  with 
the  proof  that  he  was  a  Republican,  would  seem  to  afford  prima  facie  grounds 
for  concluding  that  he  had  voted  for  Tunks.  Mr.  McCrary,  in  section  458,  says: 
“And  when  a' voter  refused  to  disclose  or  fails  to  remember  for  whom  he  voted, 
it  is  competent  to  resort  to  circumstantial  evidence  to  raise  a  presumption  in 
regard  to  that  fact,”  citing  People  v.  Pease  (27  N.  Y.,  45)  and  Cush.  Pari.  Law, 
paragraphs  199-210;  and  the  same  author  says  it  is  also  competent  to  prove 
that  the  alleged  voter  was  an  active  member  of  a  particular  political  party  or 
obtained  his  ballot  from  a  person  supporting  the  particular  candidate  or  ticket. 
We  are  not  inclined  to  follow  what  may  be  conceded  to  be  the  rule  approved  by 
a  preponderance  of  authority,  to  the  effect  that  Crawley's  declaration  as  to 
how  he  voted  is  competent. 

Now,  Mr.  Senator  from  Kentucky,  there  is  where  you  said,  “  We 
are  not  inclined  to  follow  what  may  be  conceded  to  be  the  rule  of 
proof  and  preponderance  of  authority  to  the  effect  that  the  declara¬ 
tions  as  to  how  he  voted  are  competent.”  We  think  these  statements 
are  hearsay.  You  said  in  Kentucky  that  you  are  not  in  favor  of 
following  it,  but  you  did  say  in  that  case,  and  I  know  after  mature 
leflection  and  consideration  that  the  preponderance  of  authority  was 
in  favor  of  admitting  it.  Now,  that  is  as  to  declarations  how  a  man 
voted.  Now,  we  are  not  asking  you  to  receive  evidence  here  of 
declarations  as  to  how  a  man  voted,  simply  because  it  was  a  secret 
vote.  Here  it  is  an  open  viva  voce  vote.  We  are  only  asking  you  to 
receive  declarations  as  to  what  prompted  him  or  what  was  the 
moving  cause  that  made  him  vote  that  way.  Now,  here  is  a  note,  a 
very  full  note,  and  one  that  is  very  frequently  referred  to. 

Senator  Paynter.  May  I  hear  it,  Mr.  Austrian? 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  is  that? 

Senator  Paynter.  May  I  hear  it?  .  T  , 

Mr  Austrian.  Yes;  it  is  on  that  page  [indicating].  1  have  an¬ 
other  authority  in  which  you  did  write  along  the  same  line,  in  the 
Thirty-first  Southwestern,  that  I  thought  was  here,  but  my  assistant 

did  not  bring  it.  ^  /C1  „  T  -d 

In  another  case,  the  case  of  Spear  v.  Coate  (S.  C.  Law  Reports, 

McCord,  vols.  3  and  4,  p.  143),  this  note  is  cited,  I  believe,  with  ref¬ 
erence  to  an  election  dealing  with  this  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  is  the  page,  please  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  beg  your  pardon,  it  is  143.  I  read  from  tht 
twenty-second  note,  which  cites  the  cases  in  full.  There  are  English 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  91 

« ses,  and  the  House  of  Commons,  by  the  way,  is  probably  the  only 
ace  where  viva  voce  votes  are  taken  upon  questions  in  any  way 
irallel  to  this,  and  I  cite  it  and  submit  to  you  the  volume  of  the 
irious  English  cases  upon  this  subject,  with  none  to  the  contrary. 

Tlie  declarations  of  a  voter  may  be  given  in  evidence  to  set  aside  the  election ; 

;  to  diminish  the  poll,  by  taking  an  incompetent  vote  off,  or  to  prove  bribery, 
(?.,  but  they  are  not  admissible  on  a  charge  against  the  candidate  for  bribery, 
c.  They  are  admitted  to  annul  votes,  but  not  to  set  aside  the  election  by 
t  ^qualifying  the  member  on  account  of  his  bribery,  etc. 

In  other  words,  if  it  was  charged  or  attempted  to  be  proven  by 
t  is  witness  that  Mr.  Lorimer  directly  paid  him  the  money,  it  being 
Is  act  directly,  it  would  not  be  competent  to  prove  by  John  Jones 
er  on  the  street  that  Smith,  the  legislator,  told  him  that  he  had 
ten  bribed,  but  it  is  competent,  they  said,  “they  are  admitted  to 
i  mil  votes.  They  are  not  admissible  on  a  charge  against  the 
cndidate  for  bribery.”  The  last  case  that  is  referred  to  is  the 
haftsburg  case  (3  Douglas,  150).  It  is  a  case  cited  in  every  book 
this  question.  It  is,  “  Money  to  the  amount  of  several  thousand 
|  unds  had  been  given  among  the  voters,  in  sums  of  20  guineas  a  man. 
Vie  persons  who  were  intrusted  with  the  disbursement  of  this  money, 

■  d  who  were  chiefly  the  magistrates  of  the  town,  fell  upon  a  very 
jigular  and  a  very  absurd  contrivance,  in  hopes  of  being  able 
lerebv  to  hide  through  what  channel  it  was  conveyed  to  the  electors. 

.  person  concealed  under  a  ludicrous  and  fantastical  disguise,  and 
lied  by  the  name  of  Punch,  was  placed  in  a  small  apartment,  and 
l  rough  a  hole  in  the  door  delivered  out  to  the  voters  parcels  con- 
i  ning  the  20  guineas,  upon  which  they  were  conducted  to  another 
i  art  men  t  in  the  same  house,  where  they  found  a  person  called 
1  inch's  secretary,  and  signed  notes  for  the  value,  but  which  were 
i  ide  payable  to  an  imaginary  character,  to  whom  they  had  given  the 
line  of  Glenbucket.  Two  of  the  witnesses  called  bv  the  counsel  for 
te  petitioner  swore  that  they  had  seen  Punch  through  the  hole  in  the 
or,  and  that  they  knew  him  to  be  one  Matthews,  an  alderman  of 
“•laftesbury,  and,  as  the  counsel  for  the  petitioner  had  endeavored  to 
[ove,  an  agent  for  the  sitting  members.” 

)n  the  part  of  the  petitioner  witnesses  were  called  to  prove  declarations  of 
ers  who,  at  the  poll,  had  taken  the  bribery  oath  that  they  had  received 
I  rich’s  money.  This  was  objected  to  by  the  counsel  on  the  other  side,  but  the 
sdence  was  admitted. 

9 

Xow,  I  am  not  going  to  make  an  argument.  I  have  produced  at 
list  15  or  20  authorities.  I  have  not  tried  to  argue  this  question  upon 
finciple.  I  have  argued  it  upon  precedent,  and  I  have  not  seen  nor 
I  ird  of  a  single  precedent.  Now,  the  rule  of  law  is  as  laid  down  in 
i  »  cases  I  have  cited,  and  the  rule  of  procedure  so  held  in  every  in- 
'stigating  committee  and  subcommittee  of  the  United  States  Senate 
non  privileges  and  elections,  and  you  say  the  strict  technical  rules 
'll  not  be  adhered  to.  Now,  all  T  ask  is  that  the  strict  technical 
i  ies  of  law  be  adhered  to.  I  ask  it  respectfully,  and  I  urge  it 
npectfully.  But  if  you  adhere  to  the  rules  heretofore  made,  that 
t3  strict  technical  rules  will  not  be  adhered  to,  but  you  will  seek 
[  *rupt  methods  wherever  they  may  be,  and  you  will  regard  what 
i  competent  and  disregard  what  is  incompetent,  I  will  ask  nothing 
i  >re  than  to  have  you  receive  this  testimony  at  this  time.  I  thank 


92  INVESTIGATION'  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  and  gentlemen - * 

Senator  Burrows.  J udge  Hanecy -  .  __  .  .  , 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  This  is  not  a  contested  election.  This  is  a  charge 
that  Senator  Lorimer  obtained  or  holds  his  office  by  bribery  and  by 


corrupt  practices.  #  ,  .  _  .  .  ,  .  j.  , 

Now,  if  Senator  Lorimer  were  indicted,  if  there  had  been  a  direct 

contest'  of  his  seat,  this  testimony  that  they  asked  for  here  would 
not  be  competent  under  the  last  authority  cited.  It  would  not  be 

competent  in  any  case.  .  ,  .,  |  j 

This  is  an  effort  to  show  by  this  man  White  that  he  was  bribed. 
He  says  he  was.  There  is  nobody  disposed  to  show  that  he  is  purer 
or  better  than  he  says  he  is  himself.  But  he  is  then  trying  to  corro¬ 
borate  his  testimony  by  showing  that  somebody  else  situated  as  he 
was,  as  a  member  of  the  legislature  or  the  joint  assembly,  did  the 

same  thing  that  he  did.  . 

In  other  words,  he  is  trying  to  corroborate  his  testimony,  the  testi¬ 
mony  that  he  has  given  here,  by  telling  this  committee  that  some¬ 
body  else  said  to  him  that  they,  too,  had  received  money  for  voting 
for  Senator  Lorimer. 

In  other  words,  he  is  trying  to  corroborate  his  own  testimony. 
Senator  Lorimer,  it  is  true,  is  not  the  defendant  here.  But  the 
charges  are  against  Senator  Lorimer  and  not  against  Mr.  White 
and  not  against  somebody  else.  So  he  is  in  effect  the  defendant  here, 
against  whom  they  are  trying  to  introduce  the  testimony — hear-say 
evidence — to  corroborate  the  man  who  himself  says  that  he  received 
this  bribe.  Now,  he  can  not  corroborate  himself  by  any  such  testi¬ 
mony  as  that,  and  there  is  not  any  case  in  the  books  that  holds  that 

he  can. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Ho  you  think  it  is  offered  for  the  purpose  of 
corroborating  his  testimony?  Isn’t  it  offered  as  independent  testi- 


Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  know,  Senator  Heyburn,  whether  it  could 
be  differentiated  and  said  to  be  independent  testimony  or  not.  I  do 
not  believe  that  it  can.  I  think  that  it  is  offered  for  the  purpose  of 
corroborating  his  testimony.  If  it  is  independent  testimony,  it  can 
not  be  competent  in  these  proceedings  in  any  charge,  or  rather  in 
support  of  a  charge,  that  Senator  Lorimer  obtained  his  election  or 
now  holds  his  office  by  bribery  and  by  corrupt  practices.  If  that  be 
so,  then  any  number  of  men  can  get  together  and  unseat  your  honor, 
or  any  other  member  of  this  honorable  commission. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  merely  interrupted  for  the  purpose  of  draw¬ 
ing  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  classify  it  ae 

“  corroborative  testimony.”  Then,  its  weight - 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  It  is  not  material  by  what  name  you  call  it.  It  y 
the  purpose  for  which  it  is  used.  It  is  the  manner  in  which  it  is- 
offered,  and  it  is  offered  here  in  a  charge  against  Senator  Lorimer 
that  he  holds  his  office  by  bribery  and  by  corrupt  practices, 
specific  charges  were  filed  here,  and  the  parties  who  filed  these  specinc 
charges  and  those  back  of  them  came  before  this  honorable  comnutte< 
and  "asked  to  be  represented  directly  by  counsel.  The  Legislate 
Voter’s  League,  through  Clifford  A.  Barnes,  and  the  Tribune— m 
Chicago  Tribune  back  of  them.  Clifford  A.  Barnes  said  to  this  com 
mittee  that  he  had  not  the  means  of  gathering  the  testimony.  B> 
said  he  did  not  have  the  testimony.  He  made  an  open  statement  her< 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  93 

the  meeting  that  he  did  not  have  the  testimony  to  support  the 
irges  that  he  made  before  this  committee,  and  that  are  now  before 

*  committee  for  determination  in  these  proceedings  here  as  referred 
in  the  Congressional  Record.  The  Congressional  Record  shows  his 
irges  and  the  indictment  against  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  which  was 
hi  pending  and  had  not  then  been  tried.  It  had  not  been  disposed 
by  the  judicial  tribunal  to  which  it  was  addressed  and  that  had 
nplete  jurisdiction  over  it.  He  filed  that  indictment  in  the  charges 
:e  against  Senator  Lorimer  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  Sena- 

•  Lorimer  is  the  man  charged  with  profiting  by  the  offense  that 
bite  and  the  others  say  they  committed. 

NTow,  there  are  specific  charges  here.  This  is  not  a  commission 
*atory  that  is  going  around  searching  for  something  by  which 
y  can  unseat  Senator  Lorimer  or  by  which  they  can  smirch  Sena- 
Lorimer.  Whatever  the  purpose  of  the  prosecution,  so  called, 
ght  be,  or  the  persons  or  person  who  presented  these  charges, 
it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  committee.  This  committee  is  acting 
Dn  certain  specific  charges  which  were  presented  to  the  honorable 
lv  of  which  you  gentlemen  are  honorable  members,  and  the  charges 
specific  in  all  their  details. 

STow,  they  come  here  and  they  ask  permission  to  present  authority 
1  to  present  their  evidence  in  support  of  those  charges,  and  the 
n  who  swore  to  the  charges  has  said  to  this  committee  that  he  had 
,  any  evidence  whatever  to  support  them.  If  he  had  not  any 
dence  when  he  swore  to  them,  then  he  swore  to  a  lie  when  he 
ire  to  his  complaint,  because  a  man  who  swears  to  a  thing  that 
knows  is  false  is  committing  perjury;  and  the  man  who  swears 
a  thing  that  he  does  not  know  anything  about  and  who  says 
ngs  in  an  affidavit  that  he  does  not  know  anything  about,  why 
ay  that  he  is  equally  guilty  of  perjury.  So  that  this  man  states 
•e  to  this  committee  that  he  has  no  evidence,  and  if  he  has  not  now, 
y,  he  had  not  when  he  made  that  affidavit  any  evidence  to  sup- 
't  the  charge  that  he  asked  this  honorable  committee  and  the 
late  of  the  United  States  to  investigate. 

Now,  they  come  in  here  and  they  put  on  another  man  here  who, 
will  satisfy  this  honorable  committee,  is  not  as  truthful  as 
fford  W.  Barnes,  because  Mr.  Barnes  did  come  in  and  tell  the 
th.  He  said  he  did  not  know,  or  said  rather  that  he  did  not  have, 
f  evidence  whatever  against  Senator  Lorimer,  and  they  put  into 
tion  the  greatest  legislative  body  on  earth,  the  Senate  of  the 
ited  States,  through  this  honorable  committee,  to  investigate  the 
irge  that  he  knew  at  the  time  he  made  it  was  false,  and  that  is 
at  this  committee  is  here  investigating.  They  have  put  on  one 
the  men  here  that  has  admitted  that  he  committed  three  felonies — - 
t  he  accepted  a  bribe,  he  was  a  bribe  taker,  and  he  was  guilty  of 
lfeasance  in  office — and  he  was  guilty  of  perjury,  as  I  will  show 
the  statutes  of  this  State.  He  has  committed  three  felonies  here, 
len  he  swore  to  these  things  in  the  criminal  court  it  was  perjury, 
l  when  he  swore  to  them  here,  because  it  is  equally  perjury  here, 
1  it  is  clear  malfeasance  in  office  if  he  did  these  things  he  said  he 
,  and  he  said  that  he  did  all  of  those  things  for  a  thousand 
lars. 

ntow,  this  committee  is  asked,  on  the  standard  that  he  fixes  for 
iself,  and  it  could  not  be  lower — he  could  not  have  done  worse 


94  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


things  than  he  did  except  to  commit  murder — and  now  this  com 
mittee  is  asked  to  take  his  statement  that  somebody  else  told  hin 
that  that  somebody  else  received  a  bribe,  or  was  at  least  one-thin 
as  base  as  this  witness  himself  swears  himself  to  be.  He  is  trying 
to  corroborate  his  testimony. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  take  it,  Judge,  that  that  was  directed  for  th 
purpose  of  impeaching  the  vote  of - 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  that  is,  Senator - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Representative  Clark  in  that  particular  instance 

Senator  Gamble.  Clark’s  vote  for  Lorimer  should  be  excluded- 
proof  to  be  produced  in  that  behalf.  That  was  my  understanding  o 
the  purpose  of  the  testimony. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  devious  ways  of  the  prosecution  or  peopl 
presenting  it  are  such  that  I  can  not  define,  and  I  submit  there  is  n 
member  of  this  committee,  however  learned  they  may  be,  who  ca 
define  for  any  continuous  period  of  time  just  what  their  purpose  is. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Judge,  the  inquiry  arises  in  my  mind  whether  i 
would  make  any  difference  as  to  the  admissibility  of  this  testimon 
should  we  consider  it  corroborative  or  as  independent  testimony. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  just  what  I  refer  to,  just  what  I  referre- 
to  a  little  while  ago,  Senator  Heyburn.  It  is  not  material  by  wha 
name  you  call  it.  But,  the  rule  of  evidence,  and  rule  of  law  is  estal 
Rshed  by  a  long  line  of  authorities  to  show  that  it  is  not  competen 
for  that  purpose,  and  if  it  is  not  competent  for  that  purpose,  it  is  nc 
competent  for  any  purpose,  because  if  they  want  to  use  it  for  on 
thing — they  say  it  is  a  contested  election.  There  is  no  contest  of  a 
election  here.  The  question  is  whether  a  member  of  this  honorabl 
body  has  done  dishonorable  things  which  would  preclude  him  froi 
continuing  to  sit  in  that  honorable  body  5  and,  he  is  notified  that  th 
charges  against  him  are  bribery.  The  charges  are  specific. 

Now, .if  I  may  be  permitted  to  call  the  attention  of  the  commi: 
sion  to  a  few  cases,  I  am  not  going  to  read  from  the  books,  but  I  wi 
read  extracts  and  be  very  brief.  I  will  read  extracts  from  the  book 
and  not  of  any  one  State,  but  several,  and  the  law  is  practicall 

uniform. 

Evidence  corroborative  of  the  testimony  given  by  an  accomplice  must  tend 
prove  the  defendant’s  guilt,  and  not  merely  corroborative  of  the  accomplice, 
must  extend  to  something  connecting  it  with  the  offense.  It  must  extend  1) 
yond  the  corpus  delicti  which  the  accomplice  may  be  expected  to  relate.  1 
Bishop  Crim.  Proc.,  sec.  1170.) 

Now,  let  me  say,  if  the  committee  please,  that  the  question  here  i 
can  the  witness,  who  is  testifying,  create  the  conditions  that  he  ms 
refer  to  afterwards  for  the  purpose  of  corroborating  himselt  s  #  Os 
he  tell  the  story  and  then  say  or  create  inanimate  objects,  or  amnia 
objects  that  can  talk,  and  then  refer  to  them  or  bring  them  in  throug 
his  own  statements,  or  by  bringing  in  the  persons  or  the  things  th; 
will  tend  to  corroborate  him  ?  There  is  not  an  authority  in  the  boot 
which  I  have  been  able  to  find,  that  holds  that  he  can?  There  a 
authorities  which  hold  that  where  a  witness  attempts  to  corrobora 
himself  by  showing  by  other  witnesses  that  he  did  not  prompt  < 
by  other  facts  that  he  did  not  create  that  there  is  truth  m  what  J 
said,  but  he  can  not  do  that  on  any  collateral  matters.  The  coito 
oration  must  be,  not  that  somebody  saw  him  at  a  certain  place,  n 
that  they  saw  him  do  certain  things  at  a  certain  time,  but  that  t 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  95 

h’acts  that  he  seeks  as  corroborative  facts  must  corroborate  the  facts 
>r  offense  and  be  not  collateral  matters. 

Bissert  was  a  policeman,  arrested  in  New  York  for  accepting  a  bribe  of  $500 
o  protect  Lena  Schmidt,  who  was  running  a  house  of  prostitution.  Lena 
Schmidt  drew  from  the  bank,  a  few  days  prior  to  the  alleged  offense,  the  sum 
>f  $450,  but  that  is  not  testimony  tending  to  corroborate  the  testimony  of  Lena 
Schmidt  against  Bissert.  (People  v.  Bissert,  75  N.  Y.,  630-631.) 

Now,  in  this  case  Lena  Schmidt  testified  that  she  had  paid  to  the 
lefendant  $500  as  a  bribe  to  permit  her  to  carry  on  her  vocation ;  and 
o  corroborate  her  she  testified  that  she  drew  from  the  bank,  or  she 
ittempted  to  testify,  that  she  drew  $450  at  that  time  to  pay  this  man. 
The  supreme  court  held  that  it  was  not  competent,  or  rather  the  court 
if  appeals  of  New  York. 

Page  was  on  trial  for  rape.  The  accused  had  admitted  insulting  the  prose- 
utrix,  but  the  fact  that  he  had  admitted  insulting  her  is  not  admissible  as 
ending  to  corroborate  the  prosecutrix,  since  there  was  no  necessary  connection 
etween  the  insults  and  the  felony  charged. 

Senator  Gamble.  Your  argument  is  directed  to  the  propositions  of 
he  admission  in  evidence  of  the  purported  statements  that  were 
written  by  the  witness  on  the  stand.  I  suppose  in  that  matter  that 
he  committee  had  disposed  of  that  at  the  other  meeting. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  hadn’t  offered  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  While  it  is  true,  Mr.  Senator,  that  this  may  be 
•roader  in  its  scope  than  defeating  the  object  of  the  people  offering 
he  testimony,  it  is  nevertheless'  competent  here.  It  does  go  to  that 
uestion  also,  that  this  honorable  committee  disposed  of,  and  with- 
lit  much  difficulty  and  without  the  citation  of  authorities.  These 
uthorities  go  to  this  new  question  as  well  as  the  one  that  this  com- 
littee  disposed  of  yesterday. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  is  the  declaration  of  the  witness? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  the  declaration  of  the  witness  White  as  to 
rhat  Representative  Clark  stated,  what  Representative  Clark  and 
everal  others  said  to  him. 

In  this  case  just  cited  they  could  not  prove  the  act  of  a  defendant 
n  insulting  the  prosecutrix.  He  did  insult  her,  and  there  is  no  dis¬ 
pute  about  that.  But  they  wanted  to  prove  that  in  the  charge  against 
im,  and  it  was  attempted  to  prove  it,  and  it  was  admitted  by  the 
rial  court,  the  court  of  first  instance,  but  the  supreme  court  held  that 
t  was  not  competent,  and  it  was  reversed. 

Senator  Heyburn.  It  was  admitted  as  a  matter  of  inducement. 
Judge  Hanecy.  No;  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  direct 
esults  of  the  charge  and  incriminating  circumstances,  and  showing 
liat  he  did  insult  the  prosecutrix,  and  then  he  was  charged  with 
ommitting  rape.  They  wanted  to  prove,  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
he  charge  of  rape,  they  did  prove  the  insult  to  the  prosecuting  wit- 
ess,  and  the  supreme  court  held  that  it  was  not  competent,  because, 
hile  that  was  an  act  of  the  defendant  himself,  it  was  equivalent  to 
rnguage  of  the  defendant,  because  he  speaks  by  his  acts  as  well  as  by 
is  words.  Still  it  was  not  evidence  of  the  crime  or  the  offense  that 
^as  then  being  investigated,  and  they  reversed  the  case. 

I  he  rule  in  such  cases  is  that  the  corroborative  evidence,  whether  consisting 
?  acts  or  admissions,  must  at  least  be  of  such  a.  character  and  scope  to  prove 
le  guilt  of  the  accused  by  connecting  him  with  the  crime.  (Under  Hill’s 
.  idence,  sec.  74.) 


96  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Thp  fact  that  the  prosecutrix,  in  an  indictment  for  seduction  under  a  piomise 
of  mSrriaee  gave  birth to  a  child  thirteen  months  after  the  alleged  promise 
was  made!  although  it  tends  to  show  that  the  prosecutrix  had  had  intercourse 
with  some  man  yet  it  does  not  tend  to  show  that  that  man  was  the  defendant. 
She* testified"  to’  these  facts,  that  at  a  certain  time  that  sh e  did  give .  birth  to  a 
child,  and  they  wanted  to  put  that  in  and  they  did  put  it  in  at  the  trial  in  the 
first  instance  as  evidence  against  the  man  who  was  charged  with  the  paternity  of 
that  child  (People  v.  Kenny,  110  N.  C.,  and  IT  N.  E.  Rep. ) 

The  corroborative  evidence  consists  of  some  evidence,  consists  of  some  fact 
deposed  to,  independently  altogether  of  the  evidence  of  the  accomplice,  etc. 


Now,  this  man  is  an  accomplice.  He  said  the  other  man  is  an 
accomplice.  In  what?  In  the  election  of  Senator  Lonmer.  I  his 
witness,  White,  says  that  he,  Clark,  and  Link,  and  others  were  all 
acocmplices  in  a  particular  enterprise  or  scheme.  .  . 

Senator  Heyburn.  Can  men  acting  each  independently  m  voting 
for  a  candidate  be  termed  “  accomplices  in  the  election  ot  the 

Ca  Judse^HANECY.  That  is  just  exactly  what  Mr.  Austrian  wants  to 
argue  to  this  committee  all  through,  that  there  is  a  scheme,  there  i» 
a  gang  who  take  money  and  who  took  money  from  the  jack  pot  and 
who  acted  to  hold  up  legislation  and  to  put  through  legislation,  and 
for  that  very  reason  he  argued  to  your  honor  and  to  the  othei  gentle¬ 
men  of  this  committee  that  they  were  all  accomplices,  and  because 
thev  were  all  accomplices  that  the  evidence  against  all  ot  them  is 
competent  here;  and  I  thank  you,  Senator  Heyburn,  for  suggesting 
that  because  it  is  absurd  in  itself,  but  that  is  the  very  contention  and 
that  is  what  they  are  presenting  to  this  honorable  committee,  that 
they  are  all  accomplices.  They  say  more  than  that— that  they  were 
all  a  o-ang  of  schemers,  and  therefore  that  everything  each  one  o 
these  men  did  is  not  only  admissible  against  themselves  but ‘against 
those  who  were  in  that  combination  and  against  everybody  who  had 
anything  to  do  with  any  of  the  things  which  were  enacted  or  pul 

into  effect  by  these  men.  n  .  .  _  .  . .  ...  , 

In  other  words,  they  argue  here,  and  it  is  their  entire  position  anc 

take  that  out  and  there  is  nothing  else  left  to  then-  position  01 
charges — they  say  that  if  the  Illinois  Central,  or  the  Santa  Fe,  or Th< 
Northwestern,  or  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul,  or  any  othei 
of  the  great  lines  in  Chicago  here,  or  pass  through  Illinois  m  the  sam< 
way— if  any  of  these  railroad  companies  put  money  into  the  jack  pot 
or  if  they  were  doing  the  necessary  to  kill  legislation,  if  they  wen 
held  un  by  any  of  these  men  who  are  called  members  of  the  gang  an( 
were  forced  by  necessity  or  by  any  other  extremity  to  put  money  mb 
the  jack  pot,  they  say  that  Senator  Lonmer  is  bound  or  is  tainted  b; 

tVip  arts  of  every  one  of  these  men.  .  _  .  . 

Senator  Heyburn.  The  act  of  voting  for  United  States  Senator  b. 
a  member  of  the  legislature  is  a  duty.  The  manner  of  performinj 
that  act  might  or  might  not  be  corrupt,  but  the  act  is  not  corrupt  1: 

"judge  Hanecy.  The  act  itself  is  not  corrupt ;  that  is  right 

Senator  Heyburn.  Corruption  could  not  go  farther  than  the  mar 

ner  of  the  performance  of  the  act. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  right,  and  I  agree  with  your  honor  ver 
fully  on  that,  but  they  say  that  everything  that  these  men  did  1 
other  enterprises,  in  holding  up  railroad  companies  or  corporation 
or  firms,  or  individuals  to  get  money  into  a  fund  that  they  afterwarc 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMEE.  97 

participated  in — why,  they  say  that  is  chargeable  to  Senator  Lorimer 
and  he  must  suffer  by  it,  although  he  may  never  have  known  any  of 
these  people  or  anything  which  was  done.  In  other  words,  they  say 
he  is  chargeable  with  what  the  different  corporations,  firms,  and  indi¬ 
viduals  did,  and  members  of  the  legislature.  This  is  their  conten¬ 
tion,  and  that  is  their  whole  case.  You  take  that  out  of  it  and  this 
case  would  never  have  commenced — it  would  never  have  been  com¬ 
menced;  we  would  never  have  been  brought  here,  and  this  honorable 
committee  would  never  have  been  asked  to  hear  the  case  with  that 
element  eliminated. 

Corroborative  evidence  consists  of  some  facts  deposed  and  independently 
altogether  of  the  evidence  of  the  accomplice.  It  is  independently  altogether  of 
the  evidence  of  the  accomplice,  which,  taken  by  itself,  leaves  the  inference  not 
only  that  a  crime  had  been  committed,  but  that  the  prisoner  is  implicated  in  it. 
(Roscoe's  Criminal  Evidence,  p.  122.) 

Xow,  in  many  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  no  man  can  be  found 
guilty  by  a  jury  or  a  court  on  the  uncorroborated  evidence  of  an 
accomplice.  But,  in  the  State  of  Louisiana,  that  is  not  the  law.  In 
that  State  the  accomplice  may  give  testimony  which  will  convict  the 
defendant.  That  alone  will  convict  him.  (State  v.  Callaghan,  47 
La.,  444.)  I  have  that  case  here,  and  it  is  a  leading  case.  It  dis¬ 
cusses  every  case  that  probably  was  in  existence  at  that  time. 

Senator  Paynter.  The  civil  law  is  the  basis  in  Louisiana - - 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  civil  law,  and  not  the  common  law’,  is  the 
basis  of  the  law'  in  Louisiana,  but  the  statute  there,  as  here,  has 
changed  the  common  law  in  many  material  respects.  Here  the  com¬ 
mon  law  is  the  basis  of  our  law,  and  is  in  force,  except  as  changed  by 
the  statutes  of  Illinois. 

In  the  case  of  the  State  v.  Callaghan,  it  was  shown  upon  the  trial 
that  he  received  $500  as  a  member  of  the  city  council  of  New  Orleans. 
An  alleged  accomplice,  one  Widney,  who  wTas  the  agent  of  the  Penn¬ 
sylvania  Coal  Company,  testified  directly  to  the  charge.  On  behalf 
of  the  prosecution  a  check  for  $500  was  offered  in  evidence  and  the 
stub  in  the  check  book — Widney  being  the  bookkeeper  for  the  Penn¬ 
sylvania  Company.  The  said  check  was  not  delivered  to  the  defend¬ 
ant  Callaghan.  The  check  and  stub  were  not  offered  in  evidence  as  a 
part  of  the  examination  in  chief  of  said  Widney.  On  the  examination 
of  the  said  Widney  by  the  city  council  the  basis  for  an  impeachment 
of  said  Widney  was  laid.  Upon  the  redirect  examination,  counsel  for 
the  State  handed  Mr.  Widney  a  check  book,  and  asked  him  whether 
the  stub — the  check  for  $500  mentioned  in  his  testimony — was  drawn 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  money  that  was  paid  to  the  defendant. 
Over  the  objection  of  counsel  for  the  defendant  Widney  was  per¬ 
mitted  to  testify  that  eight  days  after  the  drawing  of  the  check 
for  the  payment  of  $500  to  the  defendant  that  he  entered  the  pay¬ 
ment  of  the  $500  on  the  books  of  the  said  company.  Thereupon,  over 
the  objection  of  counsel  for  the  defendant,  the  said  entries  in  the  cash 
hook  were  offered  and  received  in  evidence,  and  are  as  follows :  Check 
mark  in  red,  93,  November  15,  K.  D.  Wood  &  Co.,  city  council,  $250; 
improvements,  $250.  In  the  course  of  the  direct  examination  of 
Widney  it  was  disclosed  that  the  writing  on  the  stub  and  check  book 
was  in  the  hand  of  Widney,  and  also  the  entry  in  the  cash  book  was 
in  the  handwriting  of  the  bookkeeper.  The  red  marks  on  the  stubs 
were  also  in  the  handwriting  of  the  bookkeeper.  Thereupon  the  said 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 7 


98  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

bookkeeper  was  called  by  the  State  over  the  objection  of  defendant’s 
counsel,  and  answered  that  the  entries  in  the  cash  book  were  made 
by  him  under  the  direction  of  Widney  as' agent  for  the  coal  company. 
Counsel  for  the  State  admitted  that  the  entries  were  made  in  the 
book  under  the  direction  of  Widney,  but  that  they  were  inadmissible 
for  the  purpose  of  corroborating  his  ( Widney ’s)  statements  or 
fixing  the  guilt  of  the  defendant.  But  when  the  basis  had  been  laid 
for  his  impeachment  they  became  admissible  for  the  purpose  of  sus¬ 
taining  the  veracity  of  Widney.  This  question  that  is  presented  to 
this  honorable  committee,  they  say,  even  for  the  purposes  of  im¬ 
peachment,  that  it  is  not  competent.  It  was  held  that  the  trial  court 
improperly  admitted  any  evidence  of  the  entries  in  the  book  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Coal  Company  over  the  objection  of  defendant’s  coun¬ 
sel,  and  that  the  admission  of  the  same  was  reversible  error. 

The  corroboration  of  the  acts  of  an  accomplice.  Where  the  issue 
is  whether  any  corroborative  testimony  is  competent  to  sustain  an 
accomplice  that  does  not  confirm  his  testimony  as  to  the  guilt  of  the 
prisoner.  It  is  stated  in  the  bill  of  exceptions  that  the  evidence  was 
admitted,  not  to  fix  the  guilt  of  the  accused,  but  to  confirm  the  wit¬ 
ness’s  narrative  as  far  as  possible  and  to  sustain  his  veracity.  The 
onlv  tendency  of  the  entries  is  to  show  that  the  accomplice  told  the 
truth  in  respect  to  directing  the  entries,  and  that  they  were  made.  To 
that  extent  they  have  not  the  remotest  tendency  to  fix  the  guilt  of 

the  accused. 

This  is  a  Massachusetts  case,  and  Judge  Gray’s  exposition  of  the 
law  is  correct.  Surely  the  evidence  falls  within  the  prohibition  so 
clearly  enunciated  that  the  testimony  of  the  accomplice  as  to  the 
facts  stated  by  the  witness  has  no  bearing  on  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner. 
Judge  Gray  held  that  no  such  testimony  could  be  admitted  to  cor¬ 
roborate  an  accomplice,  that  it  was  incompetent  and  irrelevant  in 
his  view  unless  it  tended  to  prove  the  guilt  of  the  accused. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  care  to  be  heard  at  any  greater  length? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Not  if  this  committee  does  not  desire  to  hear  from 

me. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  shall  have  to  fix  some  limit  to  discussions 

upon  objections  raised  by  counsel.  .  .  _  .  . 

judge  Hanecy.  I  am  not  arguing  on  the  question  that  this  honor¬ 
able  committee  sustained  my  objection  to  yesterday.  But  these  cases 
all  go  to  the  testimony  that  is  now  offered  and  which  has  been  pre¬ 
sented  to  this  honorable  committee.  They  are  not  all  election  cases, 
but  we  do  not  have  to  have  election  cases  to  establish  a  principle  of 
law.  The  principle  of  law  is  the  same  on  a  trial  or  in  an  investiga¬ 
tion  to  determine  a  certain  fact  or  facts. 

Senator  Burrows.  Exactly.  The  chair  is  not  disposed  to  cut 
counsel  off,  but  we  shall  have  to  proceed  as  rapidly  as  possible. 

Judge  Hanecy.  For  that  reason  I  have  not  attempted  to  read  the 
cases,  but  to  give  the  pith  of  them.  I  am  going  to  hurry  through, 
but  I  will  not  proceed  further  if  this  committee  thinks  I  should  not. 
I  have  not  spent  as  much  time  as  the  other  side  has. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  will  you  pardon  me,  but  the  committee 
does  not  care  to  hear  further  upon  that  point  at  this  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  All  right,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  will  permit  me  to 
refer  to  one  case  more  on  the  question  of  hearsay  and  elections.  On 
the  trial  of  contested  county  seat  elections,  a  witness  can  not  be  al- 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  99 

lowed  to  state  what  other  persons  not  parties  to  the  record  told  him 
subsequent  to  the  election  as  to  the  number  of  times  and  the  names 
under  which  they  claim  to  have  voted.  That  is  directly  this  question. 
And  where  testimony  has  erroneously  been  received  which  may  have 
influenced  the  court  or  jury  in  finding  a  verdict,  the  error  can  not  be 
considered  immaterial.  That  so  much  of  this  testimony  as  purports 
to  give  the  statements  of  third  parties  as  to  the  number  of  times  and 
the  names  under  which  they  voted  in  hearsay  and  incompetent  seems 
to  us  clear.  This  is  the  testimony  of  what  other  persons  told  the  wit¬ 
ness,  persons  not  parties  to  the  suit,  so  that  their  admissions  could  be 
receivable.  The  declarations  were  not  made  at  the  polls  to  persons 
conducting  the  election  so  as  to  make  parts  of  the  res  gesta,  nor  did 
they  accompany  the  principal  fact  which  they  serve  to  qualify  or 
explain.  This  is  the  other  branch  I  was  citing  authorities  on.  They 
are  simply  the  statements  concerning  past  transactions  by  strangers 
to  the  record,  and  they  come  within  none  of  the  exceptions  to  the 
rule  which  excludes  hearsay  testimony.  It  was  perfectly  legitimate 
and  competent  to  prove  the  casting  of  fraudulent  votes,  but  it  was  not 
competent  to  prove  that  fact  by  the  statements  of  the  parties  who 
claimed  to  have  cast  them.  (9  Ivans.,  387.) 

There  are  many  other  cases  to  the  same  effect. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  have  two  minutes? 

Senator  Heyburn.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  has  already  determined  the  exact 
question  before  the  committee,  and  adhere  to  that  ruling.  The  chair¬ 
man  desires  to  cite  the  case  that  was  cited  by  the  Senate  on  May  20, 
1876,  bearing  upon  this  question.  The  members  of  the  Committee 
on  Privileges  and  Elections  were  Senator  Morton,  of  Indiana,  Senator 
Logan,  of  Illinois,  Senators  Carpenter,  Alcorn,  Mitchell,  Wadleigh, 
Hamilton,  and  Saulsbury.  The  committee  in  their  report  say : 

Upon  the  other  branch  (there  are  two  branches  in  the  case,  one  for  corrup¬ 
tion  and  the  other  was  there  a  legal  quorum  of  the  legislature)  and  this  was 
upon  that  branch  as  to  whether  Mr.  Spencer,  or  his  friends,  had  been  guilty  of 
bribery,  corruption,  or  other  unlawful  practices  in  securing  his  election,  the 
committee  made  faithful  and  diligent  inquiry.  Mr.  Morgan,  counsel  for  the 
accusers,  subponaed  and  examined  many  witnesses,  and,  after  the  testimony 
was  over,  supported  the  charge  against  Mr.  Spencer  by  a  lengthy  argument. 

Those  charges  were  not  proven  in  any  respect.  No  witness  testified  that  Mr. 
Spencer  had  given  directly,  or  indirectly,  or  offered  to  give  money,  or  anything 
of  value,  in  consideration  of  votes,  or  support,  in  the  Alabama  legislature;  nor 
was  it  shown  that  any  of  his  friends  had  done  so.  Some  hearsay  testimony 
was  offered  to  the  effect  that  certain  persons  had  said  that  they  had  received 
money  in  consideration  for  voting  for  Mr.  Spencer  for  the  Senate ;  but  this  tes¬ 
timony  was  ruled  out  by  the  committee.  The  persons  alleged  to  have  made 
these  statements  were  competent  witnesses,  but  were  not  produced,  nor  wras  it 
proven  that  any  money  had  been  paid  to  them  for  such  a  purpose  by  anybody, 
whether  a  known  friend  of  Mr.  Spencer  or  not. 

The  counsel  for  the  accusers  complain  strongly  of  the  rejection  of  such 
testimony;  but  its  illegality  and  worthless  character  were  too  plain  to  require 
argument,  and  had  it  been  admitted,  it  might  have  contributed  to  make  some 
scandal,  but  would  have  proved  nothing.  Attempts  were  made  to  offer  the 
hearsay  statements  against  Mr.  Spencer  of  persons  who  were  not  shown  to 
have  been  engaged  with  him  in  any  conspiracy  to  procure  his  election  by  cor¬ 
ruption  or  undue  means,  and  by  wThose  statements  made  in  his  absence  he 
could  not  be  bound  by  any  known  principle  of  law,  which  were  also  rejected 
by  the  committee. 

While  hearsay  evidence  was  thus  excluded,  the  door  was  thrown  open  widely 
to  prove  the  payment  of  money  by  any  person  to  any  member  of  the  legislature 
or  to  be  used  with  the  legislature  to  procure  Mr.  Spencer’s  election,  by  any 
person,  whether  such  person  was  shown  to  be  a  friend  of  Mr.  Spencer  or  not. 


100  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


The  committee  deem  it  unnecessary  to  go  into  the  full  details  of  the  case, 
and  having  thus  given  the  general  result,  beg  leave  to  be  discharged  irom 
the  further  consideration  of  the  case. 


That  bears  directly  upon  this  question,  and  the  authorities  cited 
by  counsel  yesterday  have  been  examined,  as  stated  by  the  chairman; 
upon  those  authorities  the  committee  adheres  to  its  decision. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  ask  one  question? 

Mr.  Burrows.  Yes,  sir.  .  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  the  Clark  record  the  Spencer  case  was  cited  m 
1873  and  the  Clark  case  in  1899.  The  Committee  on  Elections  in 
that  case  did  not  adhere  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Spencer  case. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  would  like  in  a  very  brief  way  to  call  atten- 
tion  to  some  of  the  authorities  that  were  cited  yesterday  for  our 
conisderation  upon  this  question.  I  do  not  recall  the  case  that 
counsel  called  attention  to  by  the  Kentucky  court  of  appeals.  1  may 
or  may  not  have  presided  in  that  case;  but  even  if  I  did,  I  do  not 
think  'that  case  should  control  the  committee  in  this  case.  I  can 
not  say  but  the  testimony  may  have  been  competent  as  to  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  a  voter,  at  the  time  he  voted  as  a  part  of  the  res  gesta,  but 
I  do  not  commit  myself  to  that  doctrine,  and  at  the  same  time  I 
can  see  that  the  court  have  placed  it  upon  that  ground.  I  would  be 
very  sorry  indeed  to  perpetuate  an  error  even  though  committed  by 

.  ,  ‘v--  ,  *  T  _ i.  TUn  nmnlc  nf  ltd  ct  rPQHVt  1U  tlllS  001111- 


the  Kentucky  court  of  appeals.  The  courts  of  last  resort  m  this  coun¬ 
try  do  not  hesitate  to  review  any  cases  that  they  had  previously 
decided,  and  the  books  are  full  of  cases  that  have  been  overruled  by 
the  Supreme  Court  and  the  state  courts.  I  do  not  think  the  question 

decided  in  that  case  is  similar  to  this.  .  ,  , .  , 

Yesterday  one  of  the  counsel  made  the  statement  that  the  proot 
of  what  Representative  Clark  stated  to  the  witness,  White,  long 
after  the  legislature  had  adjourned,  it  occurred  to  me  that  it  was 
not  competent  to  prove  those  statements,  and  it  strikes  me  that  there 
could  be  no  authority  to  sustain  such  a  proposition.  I  have  the 
authorities  cited  upon  that  question,  and  have  taken  occasion  to 

I  have  before  me  (9  Kent)  an  opinion  delivered  by  Judge  Brewer 
afterwards  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  m  which  he  discusses  that 
question.  They  sought  to  prove  in  that  case,  and  did  prove,  perhaps, 
in  the  court  below,  that  a  certain  man  had  stated  that  he  had  \  oted 
in  a  certain  way.  In  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court  Judge 

Brewer  said : 


That  mu  oh  of  this  testimony  as  purports  to  give  the  statements  of  thirc 

nart  e*  as  to  the  number  of  times  and  the  names  under  which  they  had  vote 

fr^rsay  and  incompetent  seems  to  us  clear.  It  *  so  it' “so  toft  toei, 

other  persons  told  the  witness,  persons  not  parties  to  the  suit,  so  that  the 
nri mission  could  be  receivable.  These  declarations  were  not  made  at  the  poll, 
bv  persons  conducting  the  election,  and  so  as  to  make  part  of  the  res  gestae,  no 
do  toev  accomia  'v  I  principal  fact  which  they  serve  to  qualify  or  explain 
They  are  simply  statements  concerning  past  transactions  by  strangers  to  th 
record  They  come  within  none  of  the  exceptions  to  the  ru  e  which  exclude 
hearsay  testimony.  It  was  perfectly  legitimate  -and  competent  to  Prove  th 
casting'  of  fraudulent  votes,  but  it  was  not  competent  to  proie  that  fact  . 
fiip  ctfltpmpnts  of  parties  who  claimed  to  have  cast  them. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  contest  was  between  Lyndon  and  Burlingame,  an< 
that  all  "persons  supporting  either  were  principals  on  the  one  side  01  the  othei 
But  this^  true  no  more  in  case  of  a  contest  between  towns  for  the  county  sea 
than  between11  individuals  for  an  office.  Surely  a  candidate  for  the  office  o 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  101 


governor  would  hardly  feel  that  all  who  voted  for  him  so  far  represented  him 
that  in  case  of  a  contest  their  admissions  and  statements  could  bind  him  on  the 
question  of  fraudulent  votes.  No  more  is  it  true  in  the  present  case.  We  have 
examined  the  cases  of  People  v.  Pease  (27  N.  Y.,  45),  State  v.  Olin  (23  Wis., 
319),  and  the  note  to  Speer  v.  Coate  (3  McCord,  230),  and,  so  far  as  they  enun¬ 
ciate  any  principle  contrary  to  the  doctrines  here  announced  we  disapprove 
them. 

In  the  case  of  the  People  v.  Cicott  (1G  Mich.),  Judge  Campbell, 
delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court,  says: 

So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  by  means  of  the  somewhat  imperfect 
indexes  on  this  head,  there  is  but  one  case  in  which  the  decision  has  turned 
upon  the  propriety  of  allowing  inquiry  into  the  qualification  of  voters,  and  the 
identification  of  their  tickets  when  claimed  to  be  disqualified.  That  was  the 
case  of  the  People  v.  Pease  (27  N.  Y.,  45).  In  the  supreme  court  the  judges, 
although  arriving  at  a  general  result,  were  equally  divided  on  this  point.  In 
the  court  of  appeals  the  judges  elected  to  that  tribunal  were  also  equally 
divided,  and  a  majority  of  the  supreme  court  judges  belonging  to  it  by  rota¬ 
tion  turned  the  scale  and  decided  that  the  inquiry  was  proper. 

Our  attention  has  been  called  to  a  case  decided  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  reported  and  written  by  Judge  Hoar,  afterwards  in 
the  Senate.  He  discusses  the  English  doctrine,  to  which  our  atten¬ 
tion  has  been  invited,  which  allows  proof  as  to  the  declarations  of  a 
voter,  which  was  based  upon  the  idea  that  he  was  a  party  to  the  pro¬ 
ceedings.  Senator  Hoar  discusses  that  question : 

The  opinion  of  several  American  courts  and  of  some  text  waiters  of  approved 
authority  are  the  same  way.  The  correctness  of  this  practice  has  been  earnestly 
questioned  in  this  House,  and  there  is  one  decision  against  it ;  but,  on  the  whole, 
the  practice  here  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  its  admission.  In  England,  where 
the  vote  for  members  of  Parliament  is  viva  voce,  the  fact  that  the  alleged  voter 
voted,  and  for  whom,  is  susceptible  commonly  of  easy  proof  by  the  record.  In 
one  case,  however,  where  the  poll  list  had  been  lost,  the  parol  declaration  of  a 
voter,  how  he  voted,  seems  to  have  been  received  without  question.  In  State  v. 
Olin  (23  Wis.  319)  it  is  stated  that  the  declaration  of  a  voter  is  admissible  to 
prove  that  he  voted,  and  for  whom,  as  w^ell  as  to  prove  his  disqualification. 
The  general  doctrine  is  usually  put  upon  the  ground  that  the  voter  is  a  party 
to  the  proceeding,  and  his  declarations  against  the  validity  of  his  vote  are  to 
be  admitted  against  him  as  such.  If  this  were  true  it  would  be  quite  clear 
that  his  declarations  ought  not  to  be  received  until  he  is  first  shown,  aliunde, 
not  only  to  have  voted  but  to  have  voted  for  the  party  against  whom  he  is 
called.  Otherwise  it  would  be  in  the  power  of  an  illegal  voter  to  neutralize 
wrongfully  two  of  the  votes  cast  for  a  political  opponent — first,  by  voting  for 
his  own  candidate;  second,  by  asserting  to  some  witness  afterwards  that  he 
voted  the  other  way,  and  so  having  his  vote  deducted  from  the  party  against 
whom  it  was  cast. 

Hut  it  is  not  true  that  a  voter  is  a  party  in  any  such  sense  as  that  his  declara¬ 
tions  are  admissible  on  that  ground.  He  is  not  a  party  to  the  record.  His 
interest  is  not  legal  or  personal.  It  is  frequently  of  the  slightest  possible  na¬ 
ture.  If  he  were  a  party,  then  his  admissions  should  be  competent  as  to  the 
whole  case — as  to  the  votes  of  others,  the  conduct  of  the  election  officers,  etc., 
which  it  is  well  settled  they  are  not.  The  sitting  member  (this  is  on  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  reason  of  the  English  rule,  and  he  repudiates  it)  is  a  party  deeply 
interested  in  the  establishment  of  his  rights  to  an  honorable  office.  The  people 
of  the  district  especially,  and  the  people  of  the  whole  country  are  interested 
in  the  question  who  shall  have  a  voice  in  framing  the  laws.  The  votes  are 
received  by  election  officers,  who  see  the  voter  in  person,  who  act  publicly  in  the 
presence  of  the  people,  who  may  administer  an  oath  to  the  person  offering  to 
vote,  and  who  are  themselves  sworn  to  the  performance  of  their  duties.  The 
judgment  of  these  officers  ought  not  to  be  reversed  and  the  grave  interests  of 
the  people  imperiled  by  the  admissions  of  persons  not  under  oath  and  admitting 
their  own  misconduct. 

Then  he  goes  on  and  discusses  in  this  report  why  it  was  that  it 
was  admitted  in  England,  because  those  who  participate  in  the  elec- 


102  INVESTIGATION-  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

tion  were  property  holders,  and  had  great  concern  in  the  rightful  ex¬ 
ercise  of  the  franchise  privilege,  and  for  that  reason  their  statements 
on  the  outside  were  admitted. 

It  furnishes  no  analogy  for  a  people  who  regard  voting  not  as  a  privilege 
of  a  few,  but  as  the  right  of  all ;  where  the  vote,  instead  of  being  viva  voce, 
is  studiously  protected  from  publicity,  and  where  such  admissions,  instead  of 
having  every  probability  in  favor  of  their  truth,  may  so  easily  be  made  the 
means  of  accomplishing  great  injustice  and  fraud,  without  fear  either  of  detec¬ 
tion  or  punishment. 

Then  he  discusses  the  question  of  secondary  evidence. 

The  action  of  the  House  heretofore  does  not  seem  to  have  been  so  decided 
or  uniform  as  to  preclude  it  from  now  acting  upon  what  may  seem  to  it  the 
reasonable  rule,  even  if  it  should  think  it  best  to  reject  this  class  of  evidence 
wholly.  But  as  both  parties  have  taken  their  evidence,  apparently  with  the 
expectation  that  this  class  of  evidence  would  be  received,  and  as,  in  view  of 
the  numerous  and  respectable  authorities,  it  is  not  unlikely  the  House  may 
follow  the  English  rule,  we  have  applied  that  to  the  evidence,  with  the  limita¬ 
tion,  of  the  reasonableness  of  which  it  would  seem  there  can  be  no  question, 
that  evidence  of  hearsay  declarations  of  the  voter  can  only  be  acted  upon  when 
the  fact  that  he  voted  has  been  shown  by  evidence  aliunde,  and  when  the  decla¬ 
rations  have  been  clearly  proved  and  are  themselves  clear  and  satisfactory. 

The  Colorado  courts  seem  to  have  taken  the  same  view,  and  there 
is  a  North  Carolina  case  to  the  same  effect.  I  do  not  desire  to  say 
anything  further  upon  this  question,  but  I  feel,  in  view  of  the  author¬ 
ities  that  have  been  cited,  that  I  would  call  the  attention  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  to  the  result  of  my  examination  of  those  cases. 

Mr.  Austrian.  To  keep  the  record,  may  it  be  understood  that  in 
abandoning  that  line  of  testimony  at  this  time  we  reserve  the  right, 
with  the  committee’s  approval,  of  course,  to  call  the  witness  upon  the 
same  ground  when  some  further  facts  will  develop  ? 

The  Chairman.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  White,  after  the  receipt  of  this  money  that  you 
have  detailed  as  having  been  paid  to  you  by  Lee  O'Neill  Browne  in 
Chicago,  did  you  exhibit  that  money  to  any  person  or  persons?— A. 
Yes  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to,  if  the  committee  please. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Affluence  may  be  always  shown  by  any  member  of 

the  legislature  who  is  being  bribed. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  sustain  the  objection  for 

the  present. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  ask  leave  to  put  the  question  again  at  some  future 
time. 

Senator  Burrows.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  Mr.  White,  when,  for  the  first  time,  did  you 
exhibit  the  story — oh,  I  withdraw  that,  Mr.  White,  did  you  write 
of  your  experiences  in  the  legislature  of  the  forty-sixth  general 
assembly — on  or  about  the  conclusion  thereof,  or  shortly  thereafter, 
of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  ? 

A.  Yes  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  suggest,  this  being  in  regard 
to  rules  of  evidence,  that  counsel  should  not  lead  or  suggest  to  the 
witness  in  his  question.  Counsel  should  be  required  to  ask  the  ques¬ 
tion  again,  because  this  is  a  controverted  fact. 

Mr.  Austrian.  All  right;  I  will  do  so,  if  counsel  will  suggest  that 
the  question  is  leading,  but  these  are  facts  I  thought  counsel  knew. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  103 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  suggest  that  in  view  of  the  ruling  of 
the  committee  yesterday  on  these  written  statements,  it  seems  to  me 
it  is  not  very  material  when  it  was  written,  inasmuch  as  the  com¬ 
mittee  has  determined  not  to  admit  it  at  this  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Which  has  reference  to  the  story  that  he  wrote 
and  tried  to  sell  to  different  publishers,  and  did  finally  sell  to  the 
Tribune. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  understand  that  the  committee  ruled  on  that 
question  yesterda}7;  at  least,  as  to  the  rule  of  order. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  can’t  remember  as  to  that,  but  I  don’t  want  this 
record  made  up  on  the  suggestions  of  counsel  rather  than  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  did  not  know  that  the  committee  had  ruled  on 
that  question,  Senator. 

Senator  Gamble.  Not  on  the  question,  but  on  the  statement. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  on  the  general  statement? 

Mr.  Gamble.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don’t  intend  to  put  a  question  that  I  think  you 
have  ruled  on ;  let  that  be  clearly  understood. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed,  counsel. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  White,  did  you  offer  the  story  that  you  wrote 
to  the  Chicago  Tribune  at  any  time  ? 

A.  Yes;  I  offered  it  to  them  for  publication. 

Q.  And  at  about  what  time? 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  White,  we  can’t  hear  a  word  you  say. 

Mr.  White.  I  suppose  it  was  near  the  last  of  April  that  the  Tribune 
decided  to  take  it  up.  It  was  along  about  near  the  1st  of  March  or 
sometime  in  March  that  I  first  went  to  the  Tribune  office. 

Senator  Heyburn.  We  have  ruled  that  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed. 

The  Witness.  I  went  to  the  Tribune  office  after  trying  to  have  this 
exposure  published  by  other  publications  first.  I  had  tried  three 
other  publishing  houses,  and  I  did  that  for  the  purpose  to  keep  out 
politics. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that.  I  object  to  his  commenting  on 
his  statement  of  facts  as  he  goes  along  and  telling  his  purpose. 

Senator  Burrows.  Just  state  the  facts. 

The  Witness.  I  went  to  the  Tribune  office  for  advice  first.  Being 
sent  there  by  some  one,  and  I  asked  for  advice  as  to  where  I  could  get 
the  article  published  and  I  was  requested  to  bring  the  article  down 
for  examination,  the  manuscript,  and  I  took  the  manuscript  down 
and  left  it  with  the  Tribune  people  for  examination.  They  examined 
the  manuscript,  and  asked  for  time  to  investigate  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  prior  to  that,  had  you  offered  it  for  publica¬ 
tion  to  anyone  else? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  stated  lie  did — to  three  others. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  witness  answer  the  question. 

The  Witness.  I  did;  I  offered  it  to  three  other  publishing  houses. 

Q.  To  whom? — A.  The  I)oubleday-Page  Publishing  Company,  the 
Gerard  Publishing  Company,  and  the  Kerr  Publishing  Company. 

Q.  On  or  about  what  time? — A.  I  offered  it  first  to  a  publishing 
house  in  the  East;  it  was  near  the  1st  of  September,  1901).  I  after¬ 
wards  sent  the  manuscript  down  to  New  York  to  Doubleday-Page 
Company  and  I  afterwards  had  a  conference  with  their  manager 


104  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

here  in  Chicago,  and  he  took  the  manuscript  there  himself.  The 
word  they  sent  back  was  they  might  handle  it,  but  it  would  take  from 
three  to  six  months  to  investigate  it,  and  they  did  not  feel  like  they 
could  take  it  up  on  account  of  that. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  you  have  heard  frequent  mention  made  of  a  contract 
entered  into  or  agreement  on  April  29,  1910,  with  the  Tribune  Com¬ 
pany.  I  wTill  ask  you  if  that  is  the  paper  [handing  Exhibit  5  to 

witness]  ?  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  any  objection  to  this? 

Judge  Ha nec y.  No. 

Mr.  Austrian  (reads)  : 

[Exhibit  5.] 

The  Chicago  Tribune,  Office  of  Publisher, 

Chicago,  III.,  April  29,  1910. 

To  Charles  A.  White: 

You  offered  to  sell  to  us  for  publication  a  story  written  by  you  which  story 
gives  your  experiences  while  a  member  of  the  house  of  representatives  of 
Illinois  during  1909-10,  and  giving  also  certain  information  as  to  what  trans¬ 
pired  by  reason  of  your  voting  for  certain  measures,  etc.,  while  a  member  of  such 
house. 

We  refused  to  pay  you  for  that  story  or  to  print  the  same  unless  such  story 
was  verified  and  corroborated  by  persons  selected  by  The  Tribune. 

For  more  than  four  weeks  we,  with  your  cooperation,  through  different  agen¬ 
cies,  have  caused  your  story  to  be  fully  investigated. 

For  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  hereby  granted  by  you  to  the  Tribune  Com¬ 
pany  to  publish  this  story,  or  a  revision  thereof  or  excerpts  therefrom  in  the 
Chicago  Tribune  and  copyright  it  either  in  your  name  or  in  that  of  the 
Tribune  Company,  but  in  which  shall  be  tit  our  election,  and  also  in  full  com¬ 
pensation  for  the"  time  already  spent  by  you  in  assisting  us  in  obtaining  corrob¬ 
orative  evidence  of  the  facts  contained  in  this  story,  and  in  full  payment  for  all 
your  time  which  shall  be  devoted  by  you  to  further  substantiate  this  story  at 
any  time,  which  time  you  hereby  agree  to  devote  to  that  purpose  as  and  when 
called  upon  so  to  do,  the  Tribune  Company  hereby  agrees  to  pay  you  $3,250,  of 
which  said  sum  $1,250  shall  be  paid  upon  the  printing  of  the  said  story  or  the 
first  installment  thereof,  $1,000  thirty  days  after  said  first  payment,  and  $1,000 
sixty  days  thereafter. 

You  reserve  to  yourself  all  book  or  other  rights  to  the  story  other  than  the 
exclusive  newspaper  rights  hereinbefore  referred  to,  which  belong  under  the 
terms  hereof  to  the  Tribune  Company. 

J.  Keeley, 

Vice-President  Tribune  Company. 

Chicago,  III.,  April  — ,  1910. 
To  The  Chicago  Tribune,  and  The  Tribune  Company. 

Gentlemen:  I  have  read  the  above  and  foregoing  and  agree  to  the  terms 
thereof,  and  to  accept  the  sums  of  money  as  therein  set  forth,  and  I  further 
agree  to  devote  my  time  and  services  to  substantiate  the  story  referred  to  as 
and  when  requested  by  you  so  to  do  and  in  such  manner  as  you  may  direct. 

Chas.  A.  White. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  Mr.  White,  is  the  book  I  now  hand  you  the 
same  story  you  referred  to  in  your  previous  testimony? — A.  'ies; 

that  is  it.  .  . 

Q.  And  is  it  in  the  same  condition,  barring,  or  eliminating  rather, 

the  affidavit  upon  the  last  page  thereof  and  a  notation  on  page  20 
thereof  beginning  with  the  word  in  one  place  and  ending  with 

the  word  “  credit,”  that  it  was  when  you  first  took  it  to  the  Chicago 
Tribune?— A.  So  far  as  I  have  looked  through  it  hurriedly,  it  is. 

The  Witness.  So  far  as  I  have  looked  through  it  hurriedly.  I 
presume  the  pages  are  all  in  there. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  105 


Mr.  Austrian.  Will  you  examine  it  so  as  to  answer  the  question? — 
L  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  offer  this  in  evidence.  Let  it  be  marked  “  Ex- 
tibit  6  ”  for  identification. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to.  That  is  the  very  thing  that 
his  committee  has  acted  upon  and  ruled  out.  This  tells  us,  I  assume, 
vdiat  he  did  and  what  somebody  else  did.  It  is  his  story,  and  if  he 
ould  not  tell  it  here  under  oath,  then  his  aliunde  statement  there 
yould  not  be  competent. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  your  objection? 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  objection  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  in  no  way 
ompetent ;  as  telling  something  outside  of  this  proceeding  that  is  not 
mder  oath;  as  mere  hearsay  and  manufactured  for  the  purposes  of 
mblication  and  sale,  as  he  says,  and  placing  many  of  the  things  in  it 
hat  this  committee  has  had  presented  to  it  and  has  ruled  out,  and 
very  court  that  they  have  been  presented  to  has  ruled  it  out — on  both 
rials  have  ruled  it  out.  There  has  been  no  conflict  in  the  ruling. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  understood  when  this  subject  was  taken  up  yes- 
erday  that  it  was  submitted  or  proposed  to  be  offered  in  the  line  or 
orroboration  of  the  whole  testimony  of  the  witness  on  the  stand ;  and 
hat  the  committee  had  already  taken  cognizance  of  it  and  excluded  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  right,  Senator;  that  is  the  fact. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  is,  the  copy,  in  my  mind,  at  this  time  is  not 
ompetent;  it  might  be  competent  hereafter. 

Senator  Heyburn.  We  are  acting  upon  the  record  contained  in  the 
>etition  presented  to  the  Senate  by  Senator  Cullom.  My  under- 
tanding  of  it  is  that  this  paper  is  a  part  of  that  record,  and  if  I  am 
lot  correct  I  would  like  to  be  corrected,  because  if  it  is  a  part  of  that 
ecord  it  would  be  admissible,  not  for  the  purpose  of  corroborating 
nybody,  but  in  support  of  the  original  allegations  upon  which  we  are 
cting;  but  not  in  corroboration  of  anything  at  all  that  this  witness 
nay  have  testified  to.  A  party  pleading  a  fact  is  entitled  to  prove  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  not  a  part,  as  I  understand  it,  of  any  presen- 
ation  of  Senator  Cullom  or  of  anybody  else,  but  even  if  it  was,  it  is  a 
ule  of  law  that  you  can’t  do  indirectly  what  the  law  prohibits  you 
rom  doing  directly.  That  law  would  apply.  That  is,  if  he  could 
lot  introduce  it  here  he  could  not  by  sending  it  to  somebody  else 
nd  having  them  present  it,  make  it  competent  here.  It  is  a  rule 
•f  law  as  old  as  the  law  itself  is  that  the  law  will  not  permit  that 
king  to  be  done  indirectly  that  you  can  not  do  directly;  which  it 
>rohibits  being  done  directly.  But  I  understand,  Senator  Heyburn, 
Bat  it  was  not  presented  by  Senator  Cullom. 

Senator  Heyburn.  It  is  not  a  part  of  that  record. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  not  a  part  of  the  record. 

Senator  Heyburn.  The  matter  presented  by  Senator  Cullom  was 
he  charges  presented  by  Clifford  AY.  Barnes  in  his  statement,  and 
i  verbatim  copy  of  the  indictment  in  the  case  of  The  People  v.  Browne, 
n  Cook  County. 

Senator  Burrows.  And  no  other  subject? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No  other  subject. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  there  any  excerpts  from  the  Chicago 
Tribune,  do  you  know? 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  may  be;  I  am  not  quite  clear. 


106  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER, 


Mr.  Austrian.  The  very  first  exhibit  [showing  papers  to  the  com 
mittee] .  .  _  j 

Senator  Burrows.  There  were  citations  and  exhibits  from  the  Chi 
cago  Tribune,  and  Mr.  Barnes  made  the  exhibit  a  part  of  his  state 
ment. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  I  may  be  permitted  to  add,  Mr.  Chairmai 
and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  this  paper  is  not  what  was  pub 
lished  in  the  Tribune  but  a  great  deal  more.  The  Tribune,  you  wil 
observe,  reserved  the  right  to  print  it  or  all  parts  or  excerpts  fror 
it  as  they  saw  fit.  They  only  printed  parts  of  what  is  now  offere< 
in  evidence,  and  that  is  a  very  small  part.  You  may  print  it  ii 
a  dozen  different  papers,  or  a  dozen  different  languages,  or  in  dif 
ferent  languages  or  mouths,  and  after  he  tells  the  story  here  all  tha 
is  competent,  then  say  that  he  wants  to  tell  it  in  different  language 
and  different  mouths  or  different  forms,  and  that  would  be  mostly  t 
corroborate  the  story  that  he  tells  here,  I  submit,  under  the  author] 
ties  and  the  ruling  of  this  committee,  that  it  is  not  competent. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  objection  is  sustained  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then  at  this  time  I  ask  leave  to  be  permitted  t 
reoffer  it  at  a  future  time  whenever  the  committee  thinks  it  is  con 
petent. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  offered  for  identification  only,  then? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes.  Reserving  the  right,  with  the  committee 
permission,  to  recall  the  witness  upon  the  questions  that  have  bee 
passed  upon  tentatively  or  otherwise,  at  some  future  day,  when  i 
our  opinion  the  evidence  will  be  competent  under  the  ruling  of  th 
committee.  I  think  that  closes  the  direct  examination. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  questions? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  Mr.  Chairman. 

Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Mr.  W  bite,  you  were;  I  think  you  said  you  were  a  street-cs 
conductor  before  you  went  to  the  legislature  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Not  immediately  before,  were  you?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  that?— A.  Yes;  I  worked  even  after  the  election. 

Q.  That  is,  after  the  election  you  retained  your  job? — A.  I  r< 
tained  my  position  after  election. 

Q.  You  were  a  conductor  for  a  traction  company  running  throng 
East  St.  Louis  and  probably  to  some  other  places? — A.  Yes;  we  mac 
one  trip  or  two  trips  a  day  in  there,  into  East  St.  Louis. 

Q.  You  were  elected  to  the  legislature  in  November,  1908?—. 

Yes  sir. 

Q.  For  two  years  before  that,  or  from  the  session  of  the  legist 
ture  before  that,  you  were  a  lobbyist  for  some  street-car  or  some  oth< 
labor  union,  were  you  not,  at  Springfield,  during  that  session  of  tl 
legislature? — A.  I*  was  elected  as  a  representative  of  the  street-c* 
men’s  union,  in  their  interests. 

Q.  That  is  what  you  were  doing;  you  were  elected  as  a  lobbvi 
from  some  labor  union :  I  don’t  know  what  it  was,  but  it  was  a  stree 
car  union. — A.  Yes;  I  was  there  to  represent  them  in  certain  lab 
legislation;  that  was  the  instructions. 

Q.  And  to  assist  in  procuring  such  legislation  as  they  wanted,  ai 
to  assist  in  defeating  such  legislation  as  they  did  not  want  ?  A.  j 
arffue  before  committees  and  talk  in  the  interest  of  those  bills. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  107 


Q.  You  were  there  at  the  session  of  the  legislature  all  along  clur- 
!£>•  the  entire  session  previous  to  the  one  to  which  you  were  elected 
member? — A.  Not  the  entire  session.  It  was  drawn  out  for  about 
•venteen  months,  that  session  was,  but  I  was  there  from  January, 
)07,  up  until  it  adjourned  in  June;  until  the  session  adjourned  in 


line. 

Q.  That  was  the  entire  original  session? — A.  Well,  that  was  the 
sual  term,  as  the  original  session,  but  it  continued  on  until — for 
iventeen  months  altogether  the  session  did. 

Q.  Then  there  was  only  two  recesses  taken,  and  then  they  con- 
med  again  after  the  recess,  and  were  in  existence  or  in  session  prac- 
cally  seventeen  months  of  that  two-year  term? — A.  Practically  so; 
lat  is  the  way  I  understand  it;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  think  you  said  that  you  were  sworn  in  as  a  member  of  the 
gislature  by  Chief  Justice  Cartwright? — A.  Yes;  we  were  sworn 
1  collectively;  all  members  in  a  body. 

Q.  That  is,  by  Chief  Justice  Cartwright,  of  the  supreme  court  of 
llinois? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  know  the  oath  that  was  administered  to  you  by  Chief  Jus- 
ce  Cartwright,  as  such  member? — A.  He  read  the  oath  of  office 
j  all  the  members  there  at  that  time. 

Q.  You  knew  the  oath,  didn’t  you  ? — A.  I  did  not  know  it  by  heart. 
Q.  I  didn’t  ask  you  by  heart,  or  by  tune ;  but  you  knew  the  oath  ?— 
l.  I  had  read  it  before. 

Q.  You  had  read  it,  and  knew  what  it  was;  you  read  it  and  knew 
ie  language  and  understood  it? — A.  I  had  read  it. 

Q.  You  read  the  English  language  and  understand  it? — A.  Fairly 

ell. 

Q.  Yes;  and  that  is  the  oath  that  is  contained  in  the  constitution 
f  the  State  of  Illinois,  page  56  of  the  statutes,  article  4  of  the  consti- 
ution,  isn’t  it? — A.  I  don’t  know  just  what  part  of  it. 

Q.  This  is  the  oath  that  was  administered  to  you  and  to  the  other 
lembers  of  the  general  assembly,  wasn’t  it? — A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  I  will  read  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  desire  to  offer  this,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen 
f  the  committee,  and  incorporate  it  into  this  record.  I  read  from 
lie  constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  article  4,  section  5 : 


Members  of  the  general  assembly,  before  they  enter  upon  their  official  duties, 
ball  take  and  subscribe  the  following  oath  or  affirmation: 

“I  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
nited  States,  and  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  will  faithfully 
ischarge  the  duties  of  senator  (or  representative)  according  to  the  best  of  my 
bility;  and  that  I  have  not,  knowingly  or  intentionally,  paid  or  contributed 
nything,  or  made  any  promise  in  the  nature  of  a  bribe,  to  directly  or  indirectly 
dluence  any  vote  at  the  election  at  which  I  was  chosen  to  lill  the  said  office, 
nd  have  not  accepted,  nor  will  I  accept  or  receive,  directly  or  indirectly,  any 
mney  or  other  valuable  thing  from  any  corporation,  company,  or  person,  for 
ny  vote  or  influence  I  may  give  or  withhold  on  any  bill,  resolution,  or  appropri- 
tion.  or  for  any  other  official  act.” 

This  oath  shall  be  administered  by  a  judge  of  the  supreme  or  circuit  court 
ii  the  hall  of  the  house  to  which  the  member  is  elected,  and  the  secretary  of 
fate  shall  record  and  file  the  oath  subscribed  by  each  member.  Any  member 
v  1  io  shall  refuse  to  take  the  oath  herein  prescribed  shall  forfeit  his  office,  and 
very  member  who  shall  be  convicted  of  having  sworn  falsely  to,  or  of  violating 
lis  said  oath,  shall  forfeit  his  office  and  be  disqualified  thereafter  from  holding 
ny  office  of  profit  or  trust  in  this  State. 


108  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  You  did  subscribe  to  that  oath,  didn’t  you? — A 
Well,  it  was  administered  to  the  members  collectively. 

Q.  You  took  it  as  a  member? — A.  Yes;  I  was  one  of  them;  I  didn’i 
answer  yes  or  no ;  I  followed  suit,  as  they  did. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  understand  you  offer  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  offer  all  of  section  5,  article  4,  of  the  constitution 
of  the  State  of  Illinois,  being  the  constitution  of  1870,  the  one  that  i: 
now  in  force. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  objection? 

Mr.  Austrian.  None  whatever. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  is  admitted. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  are  familiar  with  the  general  statutes,  are  yoi 
not,  Mr.  White,  on  the  question  of  bribery  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object,  as  every  man  is  presumed  to  know  th 
law;  therefore  it  is  immaterial. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  accept  that  statement  as  an  answer  to  nr 
question. 

Q.  You  knew  that  the  penalty  for  bribery  in  this  State— that  brib 

erv  in  this  State  is  a  felony,  didn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  objected  to  as  immaterial,  whether  he  knes 

it  or  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  conceded  that  he  did? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  can't  concede  what  he  knew ;  it  don't  make  an; 
difference  whether  he  knew  what  the  penalty  was  or  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  knew  that  there  was  a  penalty  in  this  Stat 
which  "fixes  a  fine  of  $10,000  for  any  member  of  the  general  assembl; 
who  was  guilty  of  any  misconduct  as  a  member  of  the  general  asseni 
Iffy,  didn’t  you  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object,  for  the  same  reason. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  offer  the  provisions  of  the  statutes  of  the  State  o 

Illinois,  and  I  will  give  them  to  you - 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  have  been  written  into  the  record  already. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Which  ones? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Sections  31  and  32. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  malfeasance  in  office? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  that  has  not  been  offered.  I  have  no  objectio 

to  it 

Senator  Burrows.  We  take  notice  of  the  statutes  of  the  State. 
Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  I  think  that  is  right.  The  courts  are  coir 
pelledlo  take  notice  of  the  act  of  Congress  and  general  laws  of  Cor 
gress  and  the  general  laws  of  the  State,  but  they  are  not  bound  t 
take  notice  of  the  laws  of  other  States,  and  I  don’t  know  that  the 
would  be  the  rule  that  would  be  applicable  here,  as  this  committe 
makes  its  own  rules,  but  if  it  is  conceded  that  is  the  rule  I  vs  ill  nc 

° ^Senator  Gamble.  As  a  matter  of  convenience,  better  have  it  in  tl: 
record. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  it  you  propose  to  offer?  .  . 

Jud^e  Hanecy.  I  propose  to  offer  section  208  of  the  Cnmim 
Code  of  Illinois,  chapter  38,  being  the  misconduct  of  officers,  an 
providing  a  penalty  of  $10,000  for  any  malfeasance  or  miscondu< 
of  any  officer  or  any  member  of  the  assembly,  etc. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  no  objection  to  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  there  is  no  objection,  you  may  read  it. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  109 
Judge  Hanecy  (reads) : 

Every  person  holding  any  public  office  (whether  State,  county,  or  municipal), 
ust,  or  employment,  who  shall  be  guilty  of  any  palpable  omission  of  duty,  or 
ho  shall  be  guilty  of  diverting  any  public  money  from  the  use  or  purpose  for 
hich  it  may  have  been  appropriated  or  set  apart  by  or  under  authority  of 
w,  or  who  shall  be  guilty  of  contracting  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  expendi- 
ire  of  a  greater  sum  or  amount  of  money  than  there  has  been  at  the  time  of 
aking  the  contract  appropriated  or  set  apart  by  law  or  authorized  by  law 
»  be  contracted  for  or  expended  upon  the  subject-matter  of  the  contracts,  or 
ho  shall  be  guilty  of  willful  and  corrupt  oppression,  malfeasance,  or  partiality, 
herein  no  special  provision  shall  have  been  made  for  the  punishment  thereof, 
lall  be  fined  not  exceeding  ten  thousand  dollars,  and  may  be  removed  from  his 
lice,  trust,  or  employment. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don't  remember,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
[r.  Austrian,  yesterday  you  introduced  the  bribery  statute? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Both  sections. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Then  I  don’t  care  to  have  this  go  in  again. 

Q.  When  you  were  elected  to  the  legislature  you  were  sworn  in  and 
aalified  and  took  your  seat? — A.  Yes,  sir;  practically  so. 

Q.  You  knew  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  at  the  session  of  the  legislature 
t  which  you  were  a  lobbyist  representing  the  labor  unions;  that  is, 
le  session  prior  to  the  one  to  which  you  were  elected. — A.  Not 
good  deal. 

Q.  You  knew  him? — A.  I  had  been  introduced  to  him,  I  met  him. 
Q.  He  had  been  a  member  of  the  legislature  along  for  a  number 
f  years  before  that  ? — A.  So  I  have  been  informed. 

Q.  You  were  elected  and  took  your  seat? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  elected  a  Democrat  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  sat  in  the  legislature  as  a  Democrat? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  was  elected  at  different  times,  he  was 
ected  and  sat  in  the  session  at  which  you  were  a  lobbyist  and  the 
ne  at  which  you  sat  afterwards  as  a  member,  as  a  Democratic  mem- 
0r  of  the  legislature? — A.  So  I  knew  him;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  that  election  or  at  that  session,  Lee  O'Neill  Browne,  or 
rior  to  it  was  elected  minority  leader  of  the  Democrats? — A.  That 
as  later. 

Q.  By  the  Democrats  in  the  house? — A.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  chosen 

linoritv  leader. 

Q.  There  was  a  very  vigorous,  strong,  strenuous  campaign  carried 
n  by  different  parties  for  leadership  on  the  Democratic  side? — A. 
here  was  quite  a  campaign  carried  on. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne  was  one  of  the  candidates  and  Mr.  Tibbitt  was  the 
ther  candidate  for  Democratic  leader? — A.  They  were  the  only  two 
mdidates  before  the  caucus;  there  were  other  candidates  prior  to 

le  caucus. 

Q.  But  at  the  caucus  they  were  the  only  two  candidates? — A.  Only 
.vo  candidates  in  the  caucus. 

Q.  Lee  O'Neill  Browne  received  the  majority  of  votes  of  the 
)emocratic  caucus  for  the  purpose  of  having  a  Democratic  leader  at 
lat  legislative  session  ? — A.  He  stated  that  he  had  enough  pledged  to 

ipport  him. 

Q.  You  attended  the  caucus,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  voted  for  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  and  he  received  a  ma- 
irity  of  the  votes  of  all  of  the  members,  the  Democratic  members 
f  the  legislature  at  that  caucus,  as  leader  of  the  Democratic  mi- 
ority? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


110  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  He  received  39  votes,  didn’t  he? — A.  I  think  it  was  39.  ^ 

Q.  And  Mr.  Tibbitt  received  25  votes,  didn't  he?— A.  I  don't  recol 
iect  exactly  what  the  vote  was  now ;  it  was  something  like  that. 

Q.  After  the  caucus  and  vote  Mr.  Browne  was  declared  minorit; 
leader,  wasn't  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  he  acted  as  minority  leader,  I  mean  the  Democratic  leade 
during  all  the  session  of  that  legislature,  didn't  lie? — A.  Well,  h 
acted  over  his  part ;  there  was  a  split  on  the  minority  side  of  th 
house. 

Q.  I  am  coming  to  that,  but  he  did  act  as  leader  of  the  Democrati 
minority  during  that  entire  session,  didn't  he? — A.  I  wouldn’t  sa 
that,  Mr.  Hanecy,  because  Mr.  Tibbitt  had  pulled  away  his  men  an< 
they  didn’t  recognize  Browne  as  the  minority  leader;  he  acted  a 
minority  leader  of  his  faction. 

Q.  And  the  39  who  voted  for  him  for  minority  leader  was  a  ma 
jority  of  all  the  Democrats  in  the  house?  They  recognized  him  a 
through  as  the  leader  of  the  Democratic  minority? — A.  Not  th 
entire  39.  I  think  it  dropped  down  to  37. 

Q.  Well,  the  number,  whatever  it  was  that  voted  for  Mr.  Tibbit: 
retained  or  observed  their  allegiance  to  Mr.  Tibbitt  or  adhered  t 
him  and  refused  in  many  cases  to  follow  Mr.  Browne's  leadership  ?- 
A.  I  think  they  formed  a  separate  organization,  and  they  notifie 
the  speaker  of  the  house  that  they  had  formed  an  organization;  I  ai 
not  positive  about  that  now. 

Q.  So  Mr.  Browne,  during  all  of  that  session,  had  to  fight  for  h: 
leadership,  and  to  retain  it,  didn’t  he?— A.  Well,  lie  retained  h: 
position  over  the  men  that  had  elected  him ;  he  had  his  little  follow 
mg  of  37  men.  I  don't  know  just  how  far  his  influence  over  th 
other  members  went.  I  had  no  way  of  finding  that  out. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  3Tou  about  that ;  you  need  not  trouble  yourse! 
on  that  score.  Mr.  Tibbitt  and  his  25,  or  whatever  the  number  wa 
that  voted  for  him  for  minority  leader,  still  recognized  Mr.  Tibbi 
to  some  extent  ?— A.  That  was  the  understanding  there. 

Q.  Mr.  Roger  Sullivan  was  the  Democratic  national  commith 

man  from  Illinois? — A.  1  es,  sir. 

Q.  And  he  was  the  leader  of  all  the  other  leaders  on  the  Dem< 
cratic  side  during  that  time  and  afterwards? — A.  Well,  that  was  tl 
talk;  I  didn’t  know  that;  I  could  not  swear  to  that  positively. 

Q.  He  was  at  the  legislature  during  the  session  a  good  deal  of  tl 
time?— A.  He  was  down  there  at  different  times;  I  never  had  an 
talk  with  him  myself. 

Q.  Mr.  Tibbitt  was  an  adherent  of  Mr.  Roger  C.  Sullivan,  wasr 
pe? — That  was  the  rumor;  that  was  the  talk. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Lee  O'Neill  Browne  was  not  associated  or  allied  wit 
Mr.  Sullivan? — A.  I  don’t  know  anything  about  that. 

Q.  I  mean  generally  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  witness  says  he  does  not  know  anything  aboi 
that ;  counsel  is  trying  to  get  hearsay  in. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  it  is  facts  recognized  by  the  different  parti 

to  show  their  status. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  no  evidence  of  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  very  important  to  show  some  of  the  lette 
brought  by  this  gentleman  between  Mr.  Browne  and  Mr.  White  ai 
some  of  the  other  things,  and  I  will  introduce,  that  they  didn 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  Ill 

'here  was  a  fight  all  the  way  through  and  Mr.  Browne  was  com¬ 
piled  all  the  time  to  keep  in  close  touch  with  his  adherents,  and  do 
;any  things  that  he  would  not  have  done  and  that  no  leader  would 
1*  required  to  do  if  it  was  not  that  his  right  of  leadership  was  being 
untested  by  others  all  the  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  only  objecting  to  the  question  as  hearsay.  I 
lied  to  prove  the  condition  existing  and  I  could  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  referred  here  right  along  to  Tibbitt’s  faction 
nd  Browne’s  faction,  haven’t  you?  These  two  men  or  two  fac- 
nns — that  is  what  you  meant,  didn’t  you  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  is  what  I  meant  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  the  Tibbitt  faction,  the  portion  talked  about 
k  you,  as  a  faction  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  the  Browne  faction 
the  larger  faction  of  the  Democratic  party. 

The  Witness.  The  Tibbitt  faction  is  a  faction  of  men  that  pulled 
;vay  from  the  Browne  faction,  as  I  understand  it — from  the  entire 
:inority. 

Q.  Now,  you  were  an  adherent  of  Lee  O'Neill  Browne? — A.  I  fol- 
wed  Browne’s  leadership.  I  didn’t  follow  along  with  him  on  all 

}  bjects. 

Q.  On  every  subject  that  Governor  Deneen  was  interested  in,  you 
id  Governor  Deneen’s  will,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  don't  know  as  I  did. 
didn’t  pay  the  governor  but  one  visit  during  the  entire  session. 

Q.  It  is  a  fact  that  you  wTere  an  adherent  of  Governor  Deneen’s 
id  that  whenever  the  interests  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  and  Gover- 
>r  Deneen  conflicted,  you  were  with  Governor  Deneen? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  to  have  counsel  state  to  the  committee 
ie  purpose  of  that  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  witness  has  already  told,  and,  it  is  true,  the 
unmittee  ruled  it  out.  He  has  told  that  he  was  sent  to  the  Chicago 
ribune  by  Ed.  Wright.  Ed.  Wright  as  an  official  held  office  under 
overnor  Deneen.  The  said  Ed.  Wright  sent  him  with  his  story 
•  the  Chicago  Tribune  to  have  it  published,  and  we  are  going  to 
)llow  that  up  and  show  why  that  was  published. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  should  like  to  inquire  with  the  committee’s  per- 
ission  what  issue  that  tends  to  prove. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  tends  to  show  and  throw  light  upon  the  char¬ 
ter  of  your  prosecution  or  persecution. 

Mr.  Austrian.  On  your  conspiracy. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  may  name  it;  I  don’t  desire  to  give  it  that 

^ly  word. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  haven’t  any  objection  to  interjecting  proof  of 
ly  alleged  conspiracy  or  combination  between  any  one  or  more 
arsons  showing  the  publication  of  this  story.  Our  evidence  is  all 
?pt  out  on  that  line  because  that  was  not  at  issue  in  this  case.  We 
ill  withdraw  every  objection  along  that  line.  We  have  no  objection 
>  the  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  is  more  of  a  preliminary  question  to  show 
ie  status  of  the  people  as  they  operated  there  and  to  throw  light  on 
ie  transaction. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  have  no  objection. 

Senator  Burrows.  Counsel  withdraws  his  objection. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  the  fact  generally. 

Senator  Burrows.  Repeat  the  question. 


112  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


(Question  read.) 

A.  No,  sir;  it  is  not  a  fact.  I  voted  against  the  governor  on  propo¬ 
sitions  offered.  . 

Q.  But  you  did  vote  with  the  governor  on  many  questions  that  he 

was  interested  in  that  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  and  his  adherents  didn’t 
offer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that. 

The  Witness.  I  will  say,  Mr.  Hanecy,  that  the  governor  was  in 
terested  in  many  good  labor  measures  that  I  voted  for,  but  upon  even 
measure  that  he  had  there  I  didn’t  know  of  his  being  interested  in  it 
There  was  many  of  his  measures  in  his  message  that  were  gooc 
measures,  and  I  supported  them  naturally  when  they  came  upor 
the  floor  of  the  house. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  could  not  very  well  be  in  the  Democratn 
minority  and  vote  for  all  of  them? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  and  move  to  strike  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  was  not  put  as  a  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  ask  here  when  Mr.  Austrian  offem 
certain  letters  from  Mr.  White  to  Mr.  Browne.  May  I  be  permittee 
to  ask  Mr.  Austrian — I  made  no  objection  to  some  of  the  letters,  bu 
will  you  give  me  the  dates? 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  are  letters  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  to  Mr 
White,  dated  June  9,  13,  and  July  16;  9,  13,  and  16,  and  one  telegran 
from  Wilson  to  mite,  dated  July  14.  I  tendered  them,  but  yoi 
objected  and  the  objection  was  sustained. 

(Whereupon  the  committee  took  a  recess  until  2  o’clock.) 


afternoon  session. 


Committee  met  pursant  to  adjournment. 

Present  same  as  before. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  mite  here?  Mr.  White  will  please  re 
sume  the  stand. 


Charles  A.  White,  a  witness  heretofore  called  herein,  resumed  th 
stand  for  further  cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy,  and  testified  a 


follows : 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  White,  you  told  this  same  story  that  you  hav 
told  here  to  this  honorable  committee  to  the  state’s  attorney  of  th 

county,  didn’t  you?  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  Counsel  objected  to  the  declarations  mad 

by  these  two  other  people. 

-  Judge  Hanecy.  No;  this  is  to  affect  his  testimony  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  has  asked  if  he  told  the  same  story. 

Judge  Hanecy.  To  the  state’s  attorney  of  this  county. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  are  not  asking  for  the  story. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  may  answer. — A.  I  told  the  sul 


stance  of  the  story. 

Judge  Hanecy"  About  when,  Mr.  mite?— A.  Well,  it  was  son 

time  in  March,  I  think  it  was,  that  I  heard  the  first - 

Q.  March,  1910? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  The  first  part  of  March?— A.  Yes;  some  time  in  March. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  very  shortly  after  you  went  to  see  the  Tribune  ?- 
A.  Yes;  shortly  afterwards. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  113 

Q.  You  were  never  indicted  for  the  story  you  told? — A.  Not  to 
ay  knowledge. 

Q.  You  were  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  for  a  considerable  time, 
7ere  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  are — up  to  a  day  or  two  ago  you  have  been,  have  you 
ot  ? — A.  I  am  still  in  the  custody  of  an  officer. 

Q.  What  officer? — A.  One  of  the  officers  from  the  state  attor- 
ey’s  office  of  Cook  County. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  any  complaint  made  before  anybody  against 
ou  in  any  court,  growing  out  of  this  transaction  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  as  immaterial. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  simply  want  to  show  that  he  was  not  in  custody 
rom - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Wait,  I  object  as  immaterial. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Oh,  I  don’t  think  it  is  worth  enough  to  object  to  it. 
iet  it  pass. 

Q.  You  are  still  in  the  custody  of  that  officer  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  officer  has  had  you  in  custody  continuously  ever  since 
larch,  1910,  night  and  day? — A.  Different  officers  have. 

Q.  Different  officers  of  the  state  attorney’s  office  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  have  taken  you  to  different  cities  and  towns  and  places 
iroughout  the  United  States,  have  they  not? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  it;  it  does  not  throw  any  light  on  the 
latter  at  issue  here. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  it  please  the  committee,  I  submit  that  it  is 
uite  important  as  showing  why  he  is  here  testifying.  It  is  alwavs 
3mpetent,  I  submit,  in  every  court  and  in  every  investigation  and  in 
roceedings  of  this  nature  to  show  the  conditions  under  which  the 
itness  is  testifying,  and  that,  I  think,  is  uniform  without  any  ex- 
iption. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  may  answer  the  question. 

A.  Officers  have  taken  me  to  different  places,  not  throughout  the 
nited  States,  but  I  have  been  in  different  States — in  Michigan,  Wis- 
msin,  and  Minnesota.  I  think  those  are  the  only  States^ we  have 

isited. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  the  officer  having  }tou  in  charge,  or  some- 
Hy  back  of  him,  has  paid  all  of  your  expenses  at  the  different  places? 
Mr.  Au  SYRIAN.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  show  that  he  is  not  traveling  on  his  own 

tpenses. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  difference  does  it  make  wTho  pays  his  ex- 
enses?  Suppose  that  I  am  paying  his  expenses;  what  of  it? 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  makes  a  great  deal  of  difference.  T  think  this 
munittee  ought  to  know  who  is  paying  his  expenses.  Of  course,  if 
au  will  admit  that  you  are  paying  his  expenses,  why  that  is  different. 
Mr.  Austrian.  No;  in  fact  I  say  I  am  not;  but  suppose  that  the 
ndence  discloses  that  I  was  paying  his  expenses? 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  a  part  of  the  circumstances  under  which  he  is 
hng  taken  around. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  may  answer. — A.  He  has  paid  my 
ansportation  and  hotel  bills. 

Senator  Burrows.  Who  has? — A.  The  officers  that  had  me. 

Q.  Different  officers? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 8 


114  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  And  you  and  the  officer  that  had  charge  of  voi 
have  stopped  at  the  best  hotels  in  Chicago  and  other  places  wher 
you  went  in  the  custody  of  the  officer  since  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  a  fact. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  the  word  “best.”  It  is  a  comparativ 
term. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  that  is  not  material,  is  it? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Very  well ;  I  think  it  is.  I  want  to  establish  th 
fact  that  they  took  him  to  the  best  hotels  and  provided  him  with  th 
best  of  everything,  whatever  he  desired. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  don’t  think  it  is  material. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Very  well,  Mr.  Chairman ;  I  will  not  pursue  tha 
anv  further. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  do  you  know  why  you  are  in  custody  now? — A. 
am  not  positive  as  to  why.  I  understand  I  am  being  held  for  th 
Wilson  case  and  the  Gloss  case.  I  do  not  know  of  other  reason; 
I  do  not  know  whether  I  have  been  indicted  or  not.  I  have  neve 
been  served  with  any  notice. 

Q.  And  you  have  never  had  any  attorney  to  represent  you?— A 
Not  in  court  or  otherwise;  not  in  any  of  the  matters  in  court  c 
otherwise. 

Q.  You  testified  in  two  other  cases  in  relation  to  the  same  mat 
ters  that  you  have  testified  to  here;  that  is,  on  the  subject-matte 
under  investigation  here;  I  mean  on  the  two  cases  of  People  f 
Browne,  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  in  Chicago  here,  in  the  criminal  com 
of  Cook  County? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  first  case  that  you  testified  in  here  some  time  in  June  o 
1910.  and  in  the  second  trial — there  is  just  one  case,  but  two  trials 
that  is  the  fact,  isn’t  it? — A.  So  I  understand. 

Q.  The  first  trial  commenced  June  T  and  ended  June  30,  and  th 
second  case  commenced  August  2  and  ended  September  9.  Thos 
are  the  cases  I  refer  to. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  testified  as  a  witness  for  the  State  in  both  of  thos 

cases? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  more  or  less  correspondence  with  Lee  O  ^eil  Brown 
didn’t  you.  Mr.  White,  other  than  the  letters  that  were  introduce 
here  by  Mr.  Austrian?— A.  Yes;  I  had  other  correspondence  wit 
him 

Q.  Do  you  remember  receiving  a  letter  from  Lee  O  Neil  Brown 
from  his  home  in  Ottawa,  a  letter  dated  July  9,  1909,  addressed  t 
you.  in  relation  to  a  telegram  that  you  were  said  to  have  sent  Go' 
"ernor  Deneen,  requesting  the  appointment  of  James  Doyle,  of  L 
Salle,  for  the  board  of  control?— A.  I  remember  something  relatn 
to  that,  but  I  can  not  give  the  exact  dates  unless  I  see  the  letters. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  letter  I  now  show  you,  and  I  will  as 
whether  you  wrote  that  letter  and  signed  it  ? — A.  1  es,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Do  you  want  to  see  it,  Mr.  Austrian? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  if  you  please.  We  have  undoubtedly  see 
the  letter.  I  would  like  to  ask  counsel  the  purpose  of  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  show  that  he  did  telegraph  to  the  go’ 
ernor  of  the  State,  as  he  says  he  did  here,  asking  for  the  appointing 
by  the  governor,  of  Mr.  Doyle  to  a  position,  and  I  propose  to  folio 
that  un  by  other  correspondence  between  the  same  parties. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  115 


Mr.  Austrian.  The  mere  fact  that  he  sent  a  telegram  to  the  gov¬ 
ernor,  with  reference  to  the  appointment,  I  do  not  think  that  throws 
any  light  upon  the  relations  between  this  witness  and  Lee  O’Neil 
Browne,  and  I  do  not  think  it  will  enlighten  the  committee  at  all. 
Unless  counsel  intends  to  show  some  connection  of  the  governor  of 
the  State - 

J udge  Hanecy.  I  intend  to  show  that  the  governor  was  at  the 
Tribune  office  until  1  or  2  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

Mr.  Austrian.  TV  ith  that  statement,  and  the  committee  bearing 
the  purpose  of  the  testimony  in  mind,  I  have  no  objection. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  purpose  is  as  I  asked  here  this  morning,  to 
show  their  relations. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  objected  on  the  previous  trials,  and  said  it 
was  not  an  issue  in  this  case. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  do  not  mean  that  I  did? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes ;  I  do. 

Judge  Hanecy.  On  the  other  trials? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Not  on  the  previous  trials,  but  previous  hearings. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  do  not  object  to  it? 

Mr.  Ac  strian.  Not  on  that  theory,  if  we  may  have  the  opportunitv 
3f  going  into  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  now  read  the  letter  of  July  12,  1909,  from 
Charles  TV  hite  to  Lee  O'Neil  Browne. 

( Which  said  letter,  marked  “  Exhibit  A,  9-27-10,”  is  in  the  words 
ind  figures  following,  to  wit:) 


[Exhibit  A.  9-27-10.] 


Hon.  Lee  O’Neill  Browne, 

Ottawa,  III. 

Friend  Lee  :  Your  letter  requesting  me  to  wire  Governor  Deneen  relative  to 
appointment  for  James  G.  Doyle  received,  and  I  complied  with  your  request  as 
lirected  in  the  letter.  I  trust  you  will  be  successful  in  your  efforts  to  secure 
lie  appointment  for  Mr.  Doyle,  and  if  there  is  anything  else  I  can  do  to  assist 
rou  drop  me  a  line  and  I  will  be  glad  to  go  the  limit. 

Trusting  I  will  see  you  before  many  days  and  with  best  wishes,  I  am, 
Your  friend, 


O’Fallon,  III.,  July  12,  1909. 


Chas.  White. 


Senator  Burrows.  VVhat  was  the  date  of  that? 

Judge  Hanecy.  July  12,  1909. 

Q.  The  vote  was  taken  on  United  States  Senator,  and  Senator 
borimer  was  elected  by  a  joint  vote— that  is,  the  vote  of  the  joint  as- 
-embly  of  Illinois— on  the  26th  of  May,  1910.— A.  1909. 

Q.  1909?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  ended  the  joint  assembly  or  the  joint  session  of  the  two 
louses  on  that  day,  didn’t  it?— A.  There  were  no  more  meetings  of 

hem  that  day. 

Q.  Then  the  two  houses  went  back — that  is,  the  house  and  the 
enate  went  back— to  their  separate  houses,  and  continued  the  legis- 
ation  of  that  session? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  session  continued  until  what  day? — A.  Until  the  ad¬ 
journment. 

Q.  I  know  that,  but  until  what  day  ? — A.  It  was  in  June.  I  can  not 
■ecall  the  exact  date. 

Q.  It  was  the  4th  or  5th,  was  it  not? — A.  Somewhere  along  the 
1th  or  5th  of  June. 


116  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  You  and  Mr.  Browne  left  Springfield  about  that  day,  or  within 
a  day  or  two,  and  went  to  your  homes,  you  to  O’F allon,  Mr.  Browne 
wherever  he  went? — A.  Shortly  after  the  adjournment;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Just  before  the  session  closed  you  talked  with  Mr.  Browne  for  j 
him  to  get  you  a  position,  didn’t  you.  either  for  him  to  get  you  back  I 
in  your  old  position  as  conductor  oi  the  railway  company  or  some  j 
other? — A.  I  had  talked  to  Mr.  Browne  about  that  earlier  in  the 
session. 

Q.  That  is  not  very  material.  You  did  before  the  session  closed?— 
A.  No;  there  was  nothing  said  relative  to  that  matter  near  the  close 
of  that  session,  I  don’t  think. 

Q.  It  was  some  time  before  it  closed  ? — A.  Well,  I  tried  to  hold  my 
position  on  the  road  in  order  to  get  back  there  to  go  to  work  after  j 
the  adjournment  of  the  session,  and  Mr.  Browne  wrote  the  company  a 
letter  relative  to  that  matter.  I 

Q.  Asking  them  to  take  you  back  as  an  employee? — A.  Yes;  and 
the  company  answered  the  letter  to  Mr.  Browne,  and  Mr.  Browne  ■ 
gave  me  the  letter,  stating  that  they  could  not  hold  a  position  open 
that  way  for  employees  and  they  could  not  establish  a  precedent  in 
that  line. 

Q.  And  they  curtly  refused  to  recognize  his  request  to  give  you  the 
position  ? — A/  They  declined  to  hold  my  position  open. 

Q.  Then  you  talked  to  him  subsequent  to  that  time  there  during 
the  session,  immediately  after,  or  immediately  after  it,  and  tried  to 
get  you  some  other  position,  didn’t  you?— A.  After  the  session  was 
over  I  think  that  matter  came  up  through  correspondence  or  talks. 

Q.  That  is,  you  requested  Mr.  Browne  to  try  to  get  a  position  for 
you  some  place,  isn’t  that  it? 

Senator  Gamble.  I  suggest  that  you  mark  that  letter. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  ask  this:  I  do  not  know  what  your  ruling 
may  be,  but  I  have  borrowed  these  letters  from  Mr.  Browne  and  I 
have  pledged  that  I  will  see  that  they  are  returned  to  him,  because  he 
needs  them  for  his  other  trials  which  are  coming  up,  and  I  want  to 
know  if  it  will  be  left  with  me,  the  originals. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  can  leave  a  certified  copy  of  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  read  it  in  the  record.  That  is  the  way  I  did  it. 

(The  letter  was  marked  “Exhibit  A.”) 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  would  like  the  letter  of  September  8  from  Mr. 
White  to  Mr.  Browne  and  the  note  that  accompanies  it. 

Mr.  O’Donnell.  Just  a  minute. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  White,  I  believe  you  told  this  honorable  com¬ 
mittee  you  were  paid  a  thousand  dollars  immediately  after  the  session 
closed/  Will  you  tell  what  date  that  was  or  what  dates? 

A.  I  was  paid  that  money — well,  there  were  three  installments  of  it. 

Q.  A  hundred  dollars  paid  when? — A.  Well,  there  was  $100  paid 

in  Springfield.  I 

Q.  The  date  is  all  I  want.— A.  Well,  it  was  before  the  members  left 

there  during  that  session. 

Q.  I  know,  but  won’t  you  please  fix  the  date,  what  day  of  the 
calendar? — A.  I  don’t  remember  the  exact  date. 

Q.  Was  it  after  the  session  closed? — A.  Well,  it  may  have  been 
the  day  after  or  possibly  a  week  before - - 

Q.  Some  time  between  a  week  before  the  close  of  the  session  and  a 
day  or  two  after? — A.  Some  time  along  there,  possibly  two  weeks 
before;  I  don’t  know. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMEK.  117 

Q.  When  did  you  say  the  balance  of  the  money  was  paid  to  you  ?- 
V.  The  remainder  of  the  money  was  paid  to  me  here.  I  think  the 
late,  according  to  some  records  I  have  that  refresh  my  memory,  it 
/as  on  the  16th  and  17th  of  June. 

Q.  That  is,  the  $50  was  paid  to  you  on  the  evening  of  the  16th  of 
dine? — A.  And  the  $850  on  the  morning  of  the  17th. 

Q.  Will  you  answer  my  question? — A.  To  my  knowledge  now. 

Q.  And  the  $850  you  say  of  the  $900  paid  to  you,  when  ? — A.  To 
ly  knowledge - 

Q.  The  date  is  what  I  want. — A.  To  the  best  of  remembrance  it 
?as  on  the  17th  of  June. 

Q.  Where? — A.  In  the  Briggs  House  here  in  Chicago. 

Q.  In  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  $50  was  paid  on  the  16th  and  was  paid  to  you  here  in  the 
biggs  House? — A.  The  16th  is  the  day  that  I  remember  that  it  was 
►aid  to  me  in  the  Briggs  House. 

Q.  Between  the  close  of  the  session  and  the  17th  of  June  you  had 
ieen  paid  by  Browne,  you  say,  a  thousand  dollars? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  cash  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  said  you  had  been  paid  $900  by  Mr.  Wilson  in  St.  Louis?— 
L  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell  the  committee  what  that  day 
/as? — A.  It  was  on  the  15th  of  July,  1909. 

Q.  About  a  month — nearly  a  month — after  you  say  Browne  gave 
ou  the  thousand? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  So  that  you  say  $1,900  was  paid  to  you? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Between  about  the  tdose  of  the  session,  in  May,  1909,  and  the 
5th  of  July? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  notes  that  I  show  you,  signed  by  you  for 
150,  payable  to  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  and  dated  September  8,  1909,  and 
ay  whether  or  not  that  is  in  your  handwriting  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  letter  dated  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  September  8, 
909,  addressed  to  Hon.  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  at  Ottawa,  and  say 
whether  that,  as  well  as  the  signature,  are  in  your  handwriting? — A. 
fes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  offer  this  letter  on  two  sheets  in  evidence,  and  I 
uppose  will  be  marked  “  Exhibit  B.” 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  any  objection? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  objection. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  on  the  letter  head  of  the  forty-sixth  general 
ssembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  representatives,  and  is  dated  at 
TFallon,  Ill.,  September  8,  1909.  Have  it  marked  “  Exhibit  B.” 

(Which  said  letter  last  above  referred  to,  so  offered  and  received  in 
vidence  as  aforesaid,  was  read  by  Judge  Hanecy,  and  the  same  is  in 
he  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  B.] 

Written  on  letter  head  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  repre¬ 
sentatives.] 

O’Fallon,  III.,  September  8, 

Ion.  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  Ottawa,  Ill. 

Friend  Lee:  I  don’t  like  to  write  and  ask  a  favor  of  you,  but  if  you  can 
ccommodate  me  with  a  little  money  until  I  can  get  to  work  at  something  and 
ay  you  back  I  certainly  appreciate  it. 


118  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

This  is  the  honest  truth — I  have  only  90  cents  in  money,  all  the  money  I 
have  in  the  world,  and  you  see  I  am  boarding — have  been  for  eight  years. 

If  you  can  let  me  have  a  little  money,  fill  in  the  amount  on  this  note,  which  I 
am  making  to  you,  and  some  day  you  will  get  every  cent  of  it  back. 

Everything  is  quiet  here ;  like  Sunday  or  a  holiday  every  day. 

Trusting  I  will  hear  from  you  at  an  early  date,  I  remain, 

Your  friend,  Chas.  White. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  date  of  that  letter  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  September  8,  1909. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  White,  this  is  the  note  [indicating]  that  you  sent  in 
the  letter  with  that  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  read  the  note. 

(Which  said  note  last  above  referred  to,  marked  “  Exhibit  C,”  was 
read  by  Judge  Hanecy,  and  the  same  is  in  the  words  and  figures  fol¬ 
lowing,  to  wit :) 

[Exhibit  C.] 

$50.00.  O’Fallon,  III.,  September  8,  1909 . 

Six  months  after  date  I  promise  to  pay  to  the  order  of  Hon.  Lee  O’Neill 
Browne  fifty  and  00/100  dollars,  at  his  office  or  residence. 

Value  received,  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  6  per  cent  per  annum. 

Chas.  A.  White. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  Mr.  Browne  loan  you  that  $50? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  send  the  note  back  to  you  or  did  he  keep  it? — A.  He 
kept  it;  that  is  the  note  [indicating  paper]. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  pay  it  to  him  ? — A.  I  have  paid  it  back  to  him. 

Q.  You  have  paid  it  back  to  him  since? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  pay  it  ?— A.  I  paid  it  tp  him  after  the  first  trial. 

Q.  After  the  first  trial  of  the  case  of  People  v.  Browne,  in  this 
countv? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  after  June  30,  1910? — A.  I  don’t  know  whether  it 
was  that  long  or  not.  I  don’t  know  how  long  the  trial  lasted. 

Q.  Well,  after  the  trial,  you  say? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  for  the  exact  date,  but  it  was  after  the  trial, 
you  say? — A.  Yes. 

'  Q.  How  did  you  pay  that,  Mr.  White?— A.  Paid  through  a  money 
order. 

Senator  Burrows.  Speak  louder. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Is  this  the  draft  you  paid  it  by? 

Senator  Burrows.  What  did  he  say  he  paid  it  by— a  money  order? 

Jud  ce  Hanecy.  He  said  it  was  a  money  order. 

The  Witness.  This  is  a  draft  that  I  received  the  money  on. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Speak  louder,  Mr.  White ;  they  can  not  hear  you. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  can't  hear  all  of  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes:  he  got  the  money. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  I  understand;  I  wish  he  would  speak 
louder.  Mr.  White,  we  can’t  hear  all  of  your  testimony. 

Judge  Hanecy.  £>id  you  receive  a  letter  from  Lee  (YNeill  Browne 
dated  at  Ottawa,  September  9,  1909 - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Dated  when  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  September  9,  1909. 

Senator  Burrows.  Just  a  minute,  until  he  looks  for  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  receive  a  letter  from  Lee  O’Neil  Browne, 
dated  at  Ottawa,  Ill.,  September  9,  1909— have  you  that  letter,  Mr. 
Austrian,  of  September  9,  1909? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  119 


Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute. 

Judge  Hanecy.  While  he  is  looking  for  that  letter,  Mr.  White, 
ist  look  at  that  and  tell  whether  you  wrote  that  letter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  Judge;  I  have  it  right  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian  has  the  other  letter  now. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  here  it  is. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  the  letter,  Mr.  White.  Did  you  write 
hat  letter? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  that  letter  from  Lee  O’Neil  Browne? — A.  Yes, 
ir;  I  received  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  offer  that  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  objection. 

Senator  Burrows.  Bead  the  letter. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  on  the  letter  head  of  the  forty-sixth  general 
ssembly  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

(Which  said  letter  so  offered  and  received  in  evidence,  marked 
Exhibit  D.  9-27-10,”  and  the  same  is  in  the  words  and  figures 
ollowing.  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  D,  9-27-10.] 

[Letter  head  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  representatives.] 

Ott  vwa,  III.,  September  9,  1909. 

Friend  Charles  :  Just  got  your  letter.  Am  awfully  sorry  for  you,  old  pal, 
ecause  I  know  how  true  a  good  fellow  and  gentleman  you  are.  Your  fault, 

Id  pal,  is  in  trying  to  go  too - fast.  You  must  cut  it  out  for  a  while,  old  boy, 

'll  do  all  I  can  to  land  you  in  a  job,  but  do  not  yet  know  when  Lorimer  will 
e  able  to  do  anything,  or,  rather,  when  he  will  do  anything.  But  I’ll  do  all 
can,  Charlie.  Am  pretty  hard  up  myself  after  the  vacation  we  all  had,  but 
iave  managed  to  scratch  out  a  fifty  for  you.  Hope  it  will  do  some  good,  any- 
ray.  I  am  down  at  the  “  grind  ”  again,  working  like  a  slave.  It’s  sure  h — 1 
fter  the  “  music  and  flowers  ”  we  had  for  a  time  this  summer.  But  when 
thing  has  got  to  be  done,  I  can  always  shut  my  teeth  and  go  to  it.  It’s  the 
inly  way.  It’s  hell,  but  that's  the  price  one  pays  for  most  of  the  pleasure  of 
ife.  I  always  did,  at  least.  Good  bye,  old  man,  and  God  bless  you.  Wish  I 
ould  do  more  for  you. 

Your  friend,  Lee  O’Neil  Browne. 

P.  S. — I  hope  you  will  do  all  you  can  to  help  James  Morris,  our  old  pal,  pull 
hrough.  He  must  win,  he  says. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  was  the  date  of  that  letter  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  September  9,  1909. 

Q.  Did  you  telegraph  to  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  on  September  15,  1909, 

md  then  did  you  receive  that  telegram  [indicating]  from  Lee  O’Neil 
Browne  on  the  16th  or  the  next  day - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Do  you  mean  by  that  piece  of  paper  the  telegram 
)r  just  a  telegram? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  telegram;  I  do  not  know  whether  that  is  the 
ine  or  not.  I  don’t  suppose  it  is. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  to  know. 

The  Witness.  I  think  that  I  received  a  telegram  on  that  date. 
Judge  Hanecy.  And  you  sent  him  one  the  day  before?  I  will  read 
these  two  telegrams,  marked  u  Exhibits  E  and  F.” 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  objection? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  objection  whatever. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Exhibit  E  is  dated  at  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  September  15, 
1909,  and  Exhibit  F  is  dated  at  Ottawa,  Ill.,  September  16,  1909. 


120  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER. 

(Which  said  telegrams  so  offered  and  received  in  evidence,  rea< 
by  Judge  Hanecy,  marked  44  Exhibit  E  ”  and  44  Exhibit  F,  9-27,  1910, 
and  the  same  are  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  E.] 

[Telegram  written  on  blank  of  The  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company.] 

13  CH  ZK  B  14  DH. 

O’Fallon,  III.,  September  15,  1909. 

Hon.  Lee  O’Neil  Bp.owne,  Ottawa,  III.: 

Will  you  be  in  Chicago  Saturday  or  Sunday?  Want  to  see  you,  if  possible. 

Chas.  A.  White, 

11.24  a.  m. 

[Exhibit  F.] 

[Telegram  written  on  blank  of  The  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company.] 

Ottawa,  III.,  September  16,  1909. 

To  Hon.  Charles  A.  White,  O'Fallon,  III.: 

Impossible  to  be  Chicago  Saturday  or  Sunday.  Sorry,  but  unavoidable. 

Lee  O’Neil  Browne. 

Paid. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  write  this  letter  [indicating]  and  sign  it 
Mr.  Austrian.  Do  you  know  the  date  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  no  date  on  the  letter,  but  it  refers  to  th 
telegram,  and  that  was  one  of  the  purposes  of  introducing  the  tele 
gram,  as  it  fixes  the  date  of  the  letter.  The  letter  refers  to  the  tele 
gram  as  of  the  day  before. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don't  think  that  this  refers  to  this  telegram. 
Judge  Hanecy.  The  only  question  I  asked  him  was,  44  Did  yoi 
write  that  letter?  ” — A.  Yes;  I  wrote  this  letter. 

Q.  What  is  that? — A.  I  wrote  this  letter. 

Q.  You  wrote  that  letter  and  that  is  your  signature? — A.  Yes,  sii 
However, ‘there  is  a  word  added  in  there. 

Q.  A  word  in  brackets? — A.  Well,  some  word  there  that  some  on 
put  in  there. 

Q.  You  did  not? — A.  No. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  read  this  letter,  dated — I  will  read  this  let 
ter  from  Charles  White  to  Lee  O'Neil  Browne  and  have  it  marke< 
44  Exhibit  G.” 

(Which  said  letter,  marked  44  Exhibit  G,  9-27,  1910,”  read  by  Judg 
Hanecy,  and  the  same  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit: 

[Exhibit  G.] 

[Letter  written  on  letter  head  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  o 

representatives.] 

Hon.  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  Ottawa,  III. 

Friend  Lee:  I  received  your  telegram  yesterdy,  and  I  am  very  sorry  I  cai 
not  get  to  see  you  in  Chicago  Sunday,  because  I  am  in  such  a  position  here  tha 
I  am  embarrassed  to  death. 

Now,  Lee,  I  don’t  want  you  to  feel  that  I  am  trying  to  work  you  or  stick  yoi 
for  a  dollar,  but,  by  the  grace  of  God,  every  cent  you  have  let  me  have  you  wil 
get  back  some  day  with  interest. 

I  am  down  and  out  financially.  There  is  no  one  that  I  can  go  to  here  am 
get  a  few  dollars  from.  You  can't  imagine  how  it  makes  a  fellow  feel  to  be  ii 
such  position  and  the  fall  right  here  on  him.  I  have  some  clothes  waiting  im 
in  St.  Louis  that  I  ordered  six  weeks  ago.  I  owe  my  tailor  $S5,  and  he  has  beei 
expecting  me  to  come  in  and  pay  him  and  get  my  clothes  for  the  past  tlire< 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  121 


weeks.  But,  like  a  fool,  I  went  the  limit  of  what  I  had  on  my  foolish  stunt  in 
Chicago,  never  dreaming  that  I  would  spend  all  I  had. 

Now,  I  am  going  to  ask  you  to  try  and  do  me  a  favor,  and  if  you  can  I 
promise  you  that  the  obligation  will  be  met  and  that  you  won't  lose  a  penny 
Will  you  see  if  you  can  get  me  the  money  on  the  note  I  am  inclosing  to  you 
($100)  ?  That  will  make  $150  I  have  borrowed  from  you  since  I  saw  vou  in 
Chicago  about  the  last  of  August. 

You  may  .  have  your  doubts  about  me,  but  my  record  is  open  and  I  defy  any 
man  to  show  that  I  have  beat  any  honest  debt.  I  would  like  to  know  as  soon 
as  possible  about  this,  because  I  am  in  the  mire  to  my  neck  now.  Don’t  be 
under  the  impression  that  you  will  lose  anything  you  let  me  have,  because  if 
I  live  you  will  get  every  cent  back  that  I  get  from  you.  With  best  wishes. 

Your  friend, 

Chas.  White. 

Lee  :  I  am  making  this  note  read  for  $125,  with  interest  at  6  per  cent.  Now, 
I  am  willing  to  allow  you ’the  additional  $25  interest  on  the  $100,  so  will  put 
it  in  so  there  can  be  no  question  about  interest  in  case  I  should  die.  I  need 
the  money  and  need  it  bad,  and  would  feel  like  giving  two  hundred  for  one 
hundred  in  order  to  get  the  money.  I  am  making  the  note  for  one  year,  but 
if  I  can  pay  it  in  thirty  or  sixty  days  I  will  do  so,  or  just  as  soon  as  I  can.  ’ 

White. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Browne  sent  the  note  back  to  you,  didn’t  he? 

A.  I  think  he  did. 

Q.  And  he  did  send  you  some  money? — A.  I  think  he  did. 

Q.  How  much? — A.  Fifty  dollars. 

Q.  He  sent  you  $50  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  he  sent  the  note  back  again  to  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  this  letter,  dated  September  23,  1909,  from  Mr. 

Browne  ? 

(No  answer.) 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  read  the  letter  of  September  23  from  Lee 
O’Neil  Browne  to  Charles  White. 

(Which  said  letter  last  above  referred  to,  marked  44  Exhibit  H, 
)-2i-1910,”  and  the  same  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following, 

owit:) 

[Exhibit  H,  9-27-10.] 

[Letter  head  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  representatives.] 


Ion.  Charles  A.  White, 

O'Fallon ,  III. 


Ottawa,  III.,  September  23,  1909. 


Friend  Charlie:.  The  reason  I  have  not  written  to  you  before  is  because 
hat  I  did  not  find  it  possible  to  do  as  you  wanted  me  to.  You  know  I  told  you 
11  my  last  letter  to  you,  when  I  sent  the  other  inclosure,  that  that  was  the  best 
could  do  for  you  at  that  time.  It  was,  and,  while  I  regret  the  fact,  circum- 
tances  do  not  permit  me  to  do  what  I  would  like  and  what  you  seem  to  think 
3  so  easy  for  me.  I  herewith  inclose  draft  for  $50 ;  also  your  note  which  you 
cut  me,  and  you  can  send  me  one  for  $50  in  its  place.  I  hope  that  this  will 
elp  you  and  only  wish  that  I  could  arrange  the  matter  to  suit  you. 

I  do  not  know  what  you  are  thinking  of,  my  boy,  to  get  yourself  into  a  posi- 
ion  of  this  kind.  I  do  not  want  to  preach  to  you,  but  you  certainly  are  not  very 
•  iso  in  your  generation.  I  will  tell  you,  Charlie,  you  must  just  simply  take  the 
filiation  by  the  neck  and  get  down  to  hard  tacks  and  go  to  work.  If  you  can 
°t  get  what  suits  you,  get  something  else.  You  know  that  you  got  to  do 
omething,  and  when  you  are  in  that  position,  do  not  be  too  particular  about 
■  hat  you  do.  Lorimer  is  tied  up  so  that  he  can  not  move  a  hand  at  the  present 
ime  in  the  way  of  getting  jobs.  When  he  does  get  so  that  he  can  move,  I  will 
0  anything  in  my  power  to  help  you.  And.  as  you  know,  there  is  no  other 
venue  through  which  I  can  move.  I  am  awfully  sorry  that  you  are  in  your 
resent  financial  condition,  Charlie,  but  really,  don’t  you  know,  you  have  no- 
ody  to  thank  for  it  but  yourself.  You  certainly  could  have  used  more  judg- 


122  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER. 


ment  and  foresight  than  yon  have  under  the  circumstances.  Now  brace  up,  old 
man  and  surprise  yourself  and  everybody  else  by  making  good.  It  is  in  you, 
and  all  you  need  is  a  little  nerve  at  the  present  moment.  I  hope  and  trust 
you  will  do  everything  in  your  power  at  that  convention  at  Bellville  to  see  that 
Jim  Morris  lands.  My  best  regards  to  you.  I  will  write  you  again  before 
very  long.  Am  working  hard.  +  I 

Very  sincerely,  your  friend, 


Lee  O’Neil  Browne. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  White,  you  got  the  $50.  did  you?— A.  Yes. 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  offer  in  evidence  the  draft,  dated  September  28, 
1909,  to  the  Continental  National  Bank,  as  Exhibit  I. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  objection? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  objection.  ...  .  _ 

( Which  said  draft  so  offered  and  received  m  evidence,  marked 
“  Exhibit  I,  9-27-10,”  and  the  same  is  in  the.  words  and  figures  fol¬ 
lowing,  to  wit:) 

7  [Exhibit  I.] 

No.  416174.  ^ 

The  First  National  Bank. 

Ottawa,  III.,  September  23,  1909. 

Tay  to  the  order  of  L.  O.  Browne  ($50)  fifty  00/100  dollars. 

(Not  over  fifty  dollars.) 

To  the  Continental  National  Bank,  Chicago,  Ill.  . 

O.  Haiberle,  Cashier. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  your  signature  on  the  back  of  it,  isn't  it— 

“  Charles  A.  White  ?  ”— A.  Yes,  sir.  ,  ^  ,  OK 

O.  Will  you  look  at  the  note  I  now  hand  you,  dated  September  zo, 
1909,  and  the  letter  dated  October  1,  1909,  and  say  whether  or  not  the 
note  is  signed  by  you  and  whether  or  not  the  letter  is  signed  by 

you? — A.  Yes,  sir.  .  ,  .  ^  ,  »  ,, 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  The  letter  is  written  on  the  letter  head  ot  the 

forty-sixth  general  assembly,  and  is  dated  at  O  Fallon,  Ill.,  October 
1.  1909.  to  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  at  Ottawa,  from  Charles  A.  \\  bite. 

It  is  Exhibit  J,  and  I  will  read  it.  ...  •  , 

( Which  said  letter  so  offered  and  received  m  evidence  aforesaid, 
marked  “Exhibit  J,”  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 


[Exhibit  J.] 


r Letter  written  on  the  letter  head  ot  the  forty  sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois, 
L  e  wx  bouse  of  representatives.] 


O’Fallon,  III.,  October  1,  1909. 

Hon.  Lee  O'Neil  Browne. 

Ottawa,  III. 

Friend  Lee:  I  am  inclosing  you  herewith  a  note  for  $50  you  loaned  me. 

annreciate  the  assistance  very  much.  _  ,  -  4.rn 

I  will  pay  this  note  off  as  soon  as  possible,  also  the  other  note  for  $50  >ou 

hold  against  me.  I  am  doing  nothing  at  all,  and  can  t  say  t\  hen  w 

WMv  regrets  at  present  are  from  my  experience  that  I  let  the  better  Judgment 

of  niyseff  drift  along  the  wrong  channels  I  am  going L.t0h!.7 T^itowfit  for 
of  that  in  some  way;  can't  say  what  my  destiny  will  be,  but  I  belief e  it  tor 

tUHave  mv  ring  in  pawn  for  several  dollars,  and  am  financially  down  and  out 
The  fnt  “I  5  every  man's  life  brings  some  Interesting  surprises,  so  I  presume 
we  should  not  be  surprised  at  anything  m  these  wonderful  dajs 

If  I  live  long  enough  I  expect  to  repay  you  every  dollai  that  you  have  gne 


me. 


Don't  be  surprised  at  the  future  of  any  action  that  I  may  make. 

With  best  wishes,  yours,  ClIAS.  White. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  123 


Mr.  Austrian.  The  date  of  that  letter? 

Judge  Hanecy.  October  1,  1900. 

I  will  now  read  Exhibit  K,  a  note  for  $50,  dated  at  O’Fallon,  Ill., 
eptember  25,  1909,  and  signed  by  Charles  Ai  White. 

(Which  said  note  last  above  referred  to,  so  offered  and  received 
i  evidence  as  aforesaid,  marked  “Exhibit  K,”  was  read  by  Judge 
[anecy,  and  the  same  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit :) 


i0. 


[Exhibit  K.] 


O’Fallon,  III.,  September  25,  1909. 

One  year  after  date,  I  promise  to  pay  to  the  order  of  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  fifty 

o/lOO  dollars,  at  - .  Value  received  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  6  per 

>nt  per  annum. 

Chas.  A.  White. 


Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  pay  that  note? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  ? — A.  Since  the  first  trial  of  Mr.  Browne. 

Q.  l  ou  paid  this  at  the  same  time  that  you  paid  the  other  one, 
Pter  the  29th  or  30th  of  June  of  this  year? — A.  Yes,  sir;  they  were 
)th  paid  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  I  show  you  a  letter  dated  on  the  last  page  October  19,  1909,  and 
■k  you  whether  that  letter  was  written  and  signed  by  you? 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  date  please. 

Judge  Hanecy.  October  19,  1909.  That  is  a  letter  from  White  to 
enator  Lorimer? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  wrote  that  letter  and  sent  it  to  Senator  Lori- 
er,  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir.  « 

Q.  And  you  wrote  it  on  the  day  you  sent  it? — A.  I  think  it  was 
iat  day. 

Q.  And  the  other  letters,  and  the  other  papers  that  I  have  shown 
you  and  offered,  that  you  signed,  were  they  all  written  and  signed 
i  of  the  dates  that  they  bear? — A.  I  presume  they  were.  I  would 
)t  be  positive  as  to  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Now,  I  will  read  that  letter  from  Charles  A.  White 
■  Senator  Lorimer  at  Washington.  It  is  dated  at  O’Fallon,  Ill., 
ctober  19,  1909.  It  is  written  on  the  letter  head  of  the  forty-sixth 
uieral  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  representatives. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  objection? 

Mr.  Austrian.  None  Avhatever. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  read  it.  It  is  Exhibit  L. 

(Which  said  letter,  last  above  referred  to,  marked  “  Exhibit  L,” 
as  read  by  Judge  Hanecy,  and  the  same  is  in  the  words  and  figures 
llowing,  to  wit:) 


[Exhibit  L.] 


etter  written  on  letter  head  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of 

representatives.] 

n.  Wm.  H.  Lorimer, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Sir:  My  present  circumstances  compel  me  to  inquire  of  you  if  it  is 
ssible  for  you  to  assist  me  in  securing  a  position.  I  have  not  found  anything 
the  way  of  a  position  since  the  legislature  adjourned,  and  to  be  plain  with 
a,  am  absolutely  out  of  money,  with  no  resources  to  fall  back  on. 

1  lost  considerable  money  in  a  business  undertaking  and  presume  I  owe  some- 
:ere  in  the  neighborhood  of  $500  now.  I  do  not  like  to  ask  you  to  assist  me 


124  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER. 


in  securing  some  sort  of  a  position  that  will  place  me  on  my  feet  agriin,  but  ] 
know  of  no  other  person  at  present  that  is  in  a  better  position  that  conic 

sssist  1110, 

Possibly  there  is  something  in  the  Secret  Service  or  investigation  departmen 
that  you  could  secure  for  me. 

Kindly  drop  me  a  line  and  let  me  know  if  you  can  place  me  somewhere. 

With  best  wishes,  I  am,  respectfully,  yours, 

Chas.  A.  White. 

O’Fallon,  III.,  October  19,  1909. 


Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Austrian,  will  you  give  me  the  letter  o 
October  24,  1909? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  not  the  letter  of  October  24. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  one  in  existence. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  not  got  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  beg  pardon,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  letter  dated  October  24,  1909,  and  sa; 
whether  you  received  a  letter  of  that  kind  from  Mr.  Browne?  A 
This  is  in  reply  to  a  letter  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Browne,  and  not  a  lette 
that  I  wrote  to"  Mr.  Lorimer  at  all. 

Q.  You  received  this  letter,  did  you? — A.  Sir? 

Q.  Y ou  received  this  letter  ? — A.  In  reply  to  a  letter  I  wrote  t 

Mr.  Browne. 

Q.  This  is  Browne’s  letter  to  you  in  reply  to  one  that  you  wrote  t 
him?— A.  Yes,  not  touching  upon  the  subject-matter  of  Mr.  Lor] 
mer’s  letter  there  at  all. 

Q.  I  did  say  that.— A.  The  result  of  that  letter- 


judge  Hanecy.  The  letter  is  dated  at  Chicago  on  October  24,  1901 
Exhibit  M.  . 

(Which  said  Exhibit  M  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following 
to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  M.] 

Chicago,  October  24,  1909. 

Friend  Charlie  :  Have  been  trying  to  land  something  for  you.  I  camer 
yesterday  and  had  a  visit  with  Lorimer  in  the  afternoon  for  about  half  an  hou 
He  goes  back  to  Washington  in  December,  at  which  time  he  feels  that  he  ca 
probably  place  you  along  the  lines  you  suggested  in  your  last  letter,  in  ti 
meantime  he  is  arranging  to  give  you  a  temporary  job  up  here  as c  ev  . 
some  one  of  the  offices.  I  will  get  word  down  home  the  early  part  of  the  wee 
and  then  I’ll  let  you  know  and  will  come  up  here  and  report  to  Lorimer 
secretary,  who  will  take  you  out  and  place  you.  See?  The  salary  of  the  ter 
porary  job  will  not  be  very  high,  probably  $75  per  month  but  it  will  help  yc 
through  all  right  until  I  can  land  you  better  after  a  while.  If  this  thing  do< 
not  suit  you  well  enough  to  take  it,  you  must  wire  me  at  Ottawa  as  soon  as  yc 
get  it.  However,  in  your  present  condition,  I  think  you  had  best  take  it.  1  a 
awfully  sorry,  Charlie,  that  you  are  situated  as  you  are;  but  really  you  a 
not  entitled  to  a  whole  lot  of  sympathy ;  it’s  largely  your  own  fault  You  mu 
get  down  to  cover  and  learn  that  you  must  cut  your  coat  according  to  yoi 
cloth  You  know  I  am  fond  of  you  and  will  do  anything  I  can,  but  this  does  n 
blind  me  to  your  faults  and  the  fact  that  you  are  not  at  all  consistent  in  yoi 
expenditures.  My  very  best  regards  to  you,  old  pal,  and  remember  that  I  w 

d°  aH  Your1  friend,  Lee  O’Neil  Browne. 


Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  see  that  a  minute,  please  ? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Yes. "  Let  it  be  noted  that  I  read  from  the  copy. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes  5  and  in  case  we  find  the  original,  if  there  aj 
any  inaccuracies  in  the  copy  they  can  be  corrected,  or  an  original  ms 

be  substituted  for  this  copy. 

Judge  Hanecy  I  show  you  a  letter,  Mr.  White - 

Senator  Burrows.  Counsel  has  asked  to  see  it. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  125 


Mr.  Austrl4n.  Yes ;  he  wants  to  look  at  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  next- show  the  witness  a  letter  dated  at  O’Fallon, 
11.,  12-4-09 — that  would  be  December  4,  1909— will  you  look  at  that 
3tter,  Mr.  White,  and  say  whether  you  wrote  and  signed  that  letter  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  dated  at  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  12-4-09,  on  the  letter 
ead  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of 
epresentatives,  to  Hon.  Wm.  Lorimer,  Washington,  D.  C.,  from 
diaries  A.  White. 

(Which  said  letter  last  above  referred  to,  marked  “  Exhibit  N,” 
/as  read  by  Judge  Hanecy  and  is  in  the  words  and  figures  follow- 
ag,  to  wit :) 

[Exhibit  N.] 

Letter  written  on  letter  head  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of 

representatives.  ] 


O’Fallon,  III.,  12-4-09. 

[on.  Wm.  H.  Lorimer, 

Washington,  D.  0. 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  am  preparing  to  place  before  the  people  of  this  country  an 
rticle  I  have  written  giving  my  true  experience  as  a  member  of  the  Illinois 
jgislature.  The  article  will  appear  either  in  book  form  or  will  be  published 
i  one  of  the  largest  magazines  in  the  United  States. 

I  have  just  competed  the  manuscript,  which  contains  about  30,000  words, 
iving  in  detail  my  absolutely  true  experiences  as  a  member  of  the  forty-sixth 
eneral  assembly.  As  yet  I  have  not  closed  a  deal  with  any  publishing  house, 
ut  when  my  terms  are  acceptable  will  dispose  of  it. 

I  have  been  offered  a  sum  sufficient  to  value  the  manuscript  at  about  $2.50 
er  word. 

Believing  that  you  would  be  more  than  deeply  interested  in  the  works  and 
ctions  of  the  members  of  the  last  session  of  the  Illinois  legislature,  owing  to 
le  fact  that  possibly  your  experience  with  that  general  assembly  will  be  one 
f  the  questions  freely  discussed,  and  assuring  you  that  I  have  severed  all 
onnections  with  the  party  leaders,  as  I  am  to  be  independent  in  the  future  in 
11  my  political  dealings. 

I  am,  respectfully,  yours,  Chas.  A.  White. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  is  the  date  of  that? 

Judge  Hanecy.  4^12-09. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  date  did  you  say? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  I  read  it  as  it  is. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  said,  “  4-12-09.” 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  should  be  “12-4-09,”  and  that  would  make  it 
)ecember  4. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  that  would  make  it  December. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  December  is  the  twelfth  month. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Now,  let  me  have  that  telegram,  the  copy,  have 
ou  got  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute. 

Mr.  O’Donnell.  What  date  do  you  want? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  November  5. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  date  is  that? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  show  him  the  copy - 

Senator  Burrows.  State  your  question  now. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  White,  I  show  you  copy  of  a  telegram,  and 
sk  you  whether  you  sent  the  original  of  that  telegram  to  Lee  O’Neil 


126  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  date  is  that  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  give  it  to  you  in  just  a  minute,  Mr.  Austria! 
The  Witness.  I  would  not  be  positive  about  the  exact  date, 
think  I  did  about  that  date. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  about  that  date. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  one  you  say  that  he  sent? 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  sent  it  to  Browne. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  have  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  thought  you  might  have  it.  I  will  read  tele 
gram  to  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  dated  November  5,  1909,  from  Charle 
A.  White.  It  is  marked  “  Exhibit  O.” 

( Which  said  telegram,  so  offered  and  received  in  evidence,  marke 
“  Exhibit  O,  9-27-10,”  and  the  same  is  in  the  words  and  figures  fo. 
lowing,  to  wit :) 

[This  letter  was  never  handed  to  stenographer.] 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  another  letter,  dated  November  6,  1901 
Will  you  give  it  to  me,  please? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  say  it  was  November  6. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Pardon  me  just  a  minute,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Certainly. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Going  back  to  the  letter  that  asked  about  obtainin 
a  position  for  you,  paying  $75  per  month,  in  one  of  the  offices  of  th 
departments  of  Chicago  here,  what  did  you  do  with  reference  to  that 
Did  you  accept  the  offer  of  Mr.  Browne,  or  did  you  say  you  woul 
accept  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  It  is  all  in  the  correspondence,  or  pai 
of  it  is  in  the  correspondence. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Is  that  in  the  letter? 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  in  the  telegram  and  letters  I  have  here. 
Judge  Hanecy.  If  you  will  be  kind  enough  to  let  me  see — he  di 
say  that  he  would  accept  it,  and  then  he  said  he  would  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Judge  Hanecy,  I  now  hand  you  a  telegram  of  N< 
vember  2,  1909,  a  telegram  of  November  1,  1909,  a  letter  of  No\  embi 
2.  1909.  and  a  letter  of  November  6,  1909,  with  reference  to  that  vei 
matter.  This  is  the  letter  you  just  wanted  of  November  6—1  can  n< 
tell  whether  it  is  a  6  or  an  8. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  now  read  letter  of  November  2,  1909,  to  Chark 

White  from  Lee  O'Neil  Browne. 

(Which  said  letter  so  offered  and  admitted  in  evidence,  marke 
“Exhibit  P.  9-27-10,”  and  the  same  was  read  by  Judge  Hanecy  i 
the  following  words  and  figures,  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  P.] 

Ottawa,  III.,  November  2,  1009. 

To  Hon.  Chas.  A.  White.  City:  *  £ 

Report  to  Charles  Ward,  secretary  to  Senator  Lorimer,  ninth  floor  Rooke: 
Building,  Chicago,  at  once.  Tell  him  James  L.  Monaghan,  in  the  conn 
building,  wired  me  to  have  you  report  for  duty.  If  you  do  not  find  V  ard  i 
at  once  to  Monaghan.  He  has  you  placed.  Wire  me  at  once  so  I  may  kno 
you  get  this  letter  to  you  to-day  care  of  Briggs  House. 

J  Lee  O  Neill  Browne. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  received  that  telegram,  did  you  ? — A.  Let  i 

see  the  telegram. 

Q.  Mr.  Austrian  says  you  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Nofl  didn't  say  he  did. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  127 


Judge  Hanecy.  You  said  it  was  in  the  telegrams.  Look  at  it, 
Mr.  White. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  this  letter  dated  November  6,  1909,  from 
Lee  O'Neil  Browne  to  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  dated  at  Ottawa,  Ill.,  November  6,  1909,  to 
Hon.  Charles  A.  White,  Briggs  House,  Chicago,  Ill.,  from  Lee  O’Neill 
Browne,  Exhibit  Q. 

(Which  said  letter  so  otfered  and  received  in  evidence,  marked 
‘Exhibit  Q,  9-27-10,”  and  the  same  was  read  by  Judge  Hanecy  in 
the  following  words  and  figures,  to  wit:) 


[Exhibit  Q.] 

[Letter  head  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  representatives.] 

Ottawa,  III.,  November  6,  1909. 

Flon.  Charles  A.  White, 

Care  of  Briggs  House,  Chicago,  III. 

Friend  White:  I  just  received  your  telegram  informing  me  that  you  do  not 
■are  to  accept  the  $75  position  which  I  have  been  at  so  much  pains  and  trouble 
o  secure  for  you  in  Chicago,  and  which  you  were,  so  recently,  urging  to 
secure  for  you.  To  say  that  your  telegram  is  a  surprise  to  me,  a  disagreeable 
surprise,  puts  the  matter  rather  mildly.  It  may  be  possible  that  you  think  my 
reatment  of  you  in  the  past  two  years  deserves  this  kind  of  uppishness,  if  I 
nay  call  it  that,  on  your  part;  I  hardly  think  so.  However,  let  there  be  no 
nisunderstanding  between  us  in  this  matter.  If,  as  you  say  in  your  telegram, 
-on  really  do  not  want  this  place,  I  know  of  a  good,  deserving'  young  fellow 
lere  in.  my  home  country  who  would  be  tickled  to  death  to  get  it.  Of  course, 
inder  the  circumstances,  I  very  much  prefer  that  you  go  ahead  and  take  this 
'lace  and  do  the  best  you  can  with  it  until  a  better  place  offers.  In  fact,  I 
kink  it  is  the  least  that  you  could  do  under  the  circumstances.  All  the  same, 
here  is  no  law  compelling  you  to  take  it,  and  if  you  do  not  really  want  it 
(lease  wire  me  to  that  effect  as  soon  as  you  get  this  letter  and  I  will  make  other 
rrangements.  » 

Yours,  truly,  Lee  O’Neil  Browne. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Will  you  look  at  the  letter  and  telegram  that  I 
how  you  and  I  will  ask  you  if  you  received  them.? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  telegram  will  be  marked  “Exhibit  R.”  The 
etter  will  be  the  next  exhibit  following  it. 

(Which  said  telegram  last  above  referred  to,  marked  “  Exhibit  R,” 
ind  the  same  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  R.] 


1  Ch  ZB  B  12  Paid. 

E — Chicago,  III.,  November  1. 

1.EE  O’Nftll  Browne, 

Ottawa,  III.: 

Send  White  to  me  have  arranged  for  him  to  work  week  ago. 

James  L.  Monaghan. 

8.10  a.  m. 

[Exhibit  S.] 


Letter  head  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  representatives.] 


Ottawa,  III.,  November  2,  1909. 

Ion.  Charles  A.  White, 

Briggs  House,  corner  Randolph  street  and  Fifth  avenue, 

Chicago,  III. 

Friend  Charlie:  I  inclose  telegram  received  by  me  this  morning  from  James 
Monaghan,  in  the  county  building  of  Chicago.  lie  “  owns  ”  one  of  the 
ffices  in  the  county  building  and  can  be  found  there.  He  is  one  of  the  promi- 


128  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


nent  fellows  in  Cook  County  and  everybody  knows  him.  I  wired  you  this 
morning,  instructing  you  to  go  to  Chicago  at  once.  You  are  to  go  at  once  tc 
Charles  A.  Ward,  secretary  to  Senator  Lorimer,  on  the  ninth  floor  of  the 
Rookery  Building,  on  La  Salle  street,  and  tell  him  who  you  are  and  that  you 
were  sent  there  by  me  in  response  to  a  telegram  from  Monaghan.  He  will  at  once 
take  you  over  to  Monoghan,  or  send  you  over  to  him  with  a  note.  In  case  you 
find  Ward  out,  you  will  go  at  once  to  Monaghan  and  tell  him  who  you  are  anc 
that  you  were  sent  there  by  me  in  response  to  his  telegram.  Monaghan  will  a. 
once  place  vou  at  work.  As  I  told  you  in  a  letter  some  days  ago,  this  job  is 
only  temporary  and  will  pay  you  probably  $75  a  month.  As  sooy  Congress 
opens  in  December,  or  shortly  after,  Lorimer  thinks  that  he  wdi  be  able  t( 
place  you  at  something  more  remunerative  and  something  that  will  enable  you  t< 
be  in  your  home  district  more  of  the  time.  In  any  event,  this  was  the  best  thai 
I  could  do  for  you  at  this  time,  and,  under  the  circumstances,  it  will  help  ou 
a  whole  lot.  Now,  then,  I  want  to  talk  to  you  just  a  minute  right  from  th< 
shoulder.  You  may  not  like  it,  but  just  the  same  it  will  do  you  good  if  yoi 
will  listen  to  it  and  take  heed.  When  you  go  up  to  Chicago  and  stait  m  at  tin. 
job  just  remember  that  you  have  got  to  make  good.  Also  remember  that  1 
you  don’t  make  good,  you  are  throwing  me  down.  Just  cut  out  all  your  fool 
ishness,  the  booze  and  other  things,  and  get  down  to  the  hard-pan  basis  an(j  d< 
what  is  right.  You  have  got  to  learn  to  cut  your  coat  according  to  the  cloth 
and  realize  that  there  is  just  so  much  to  get  along  on.  In  this  way  you  wil 
eventually  be  able  to  get  in  a  place  where  you  can  spread  out  a  Lttle  more^ 
Now.  then,  you  do  what  is  right,  and  do  the  best  you  can,  not  only  on  your  owi 
account  but  on  mine,  and  I  will  do  my  best  to  see  that  you  get  along  all  rigli 
and  that  you  are  helped  just  as  fast  as  there  is  a  chance  to  help  you.  I  am  you 
friend,  as  you  well  know,  and  I  will  do  anything  I  can  for  you,  but  you  hav 
got  to  do  for  yourself  also.  I  hope  to  see  you  before  very  long.  M  rite  me  ; 
letter  and  tell  me  all  about  it  just  as  soon  as  you  have  an  opportunity. 

Yours,  truly,  Lee  q,Neill  Bbowne. 


Q.  Did  you  write  that  letter  to  the  Belleville  Democrat  [handin| 

witness  paper]  ?  .  .  ,  ,  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  purports  to  be  a  printed  letter. 

The  Witness.  There  was  an  editorial  attached  to  this. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  not  the  letter.  ,  .,  , 

The  Witness.  The  letter  is  attached  to  an  editorial ;  the  letter  itsel 
was  partially  dictated  by  Mr.  Browne.  It  is  a  composition  of 

letter  by  Mr.  Browne  and  myself. 

Q.  Sent  under  your  name?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  signed  it,  did  you? — A.  Yes;  sir.  I  would  not  say  that  i 

the  letter.  There  is  an  editorial  with  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  offer  this  letter  m  evidence. 

(Received,  read,  and  marked  Exhibit  T.) 


[Exhibit  T.] 


Springfield,  III.,  May  29,  1909. 


Hon.  Fred  J.  Kern, 

Belleville,  III.  ! 

My  Dear  Mr.  Kern  :  I  received  the  copy  of  your  paper,  the  News-Democra 
and  read  with  great  interest  your  editorial  relative  to  the  position  o 
Democratic  members  of  the  legislature  taken  in  Batting  the 
senatorial  contest  ever  experienced  m  the  history  of  the  State  of  I  • 

It  gives  me  pleasure  to  know  that  there  are  men  m  public  life,  prominent 
the  Democratic  party,  who  can  look  upon  a  situation  <'  th,s  character  with 
broad  and  liberal  views  as  you  have  expressed  f?„  t°  the  h;fs  be, 

of  your  valuable  paper.  The  Republican  party  of  this  State  is,  as  has  be. 
deinonstrated  in  this  present  session  of  the  legislature,  divided  m  such  a 
ner  that  it  was  practically  Impossible,  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  for  the 
to  settle  this  long  and  expensive  drawn-out  contest,  and  feeling  that  the 
of  Illinois Should  be  represented  in  the  United  States  Senate  during  the 
critical  moments  by  a  man  from  this  State,  I  felt  it  a  public  d  y, 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  129 

•onference  with  older  and  more  experienced  workers  in  the  Democratic  ranks 
o  cast  my  vote  for  the  Hon.  William  TI.  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator. 

This  contest  has  been  carried  on  now  for  five  months,  and  I  voted  upon 
>ach  ballot  for  a  Democratic  candidate,  and  realizing  that  the  State  has  been 
>ut  to  an  expense  of  many  thousands  of  dollars  through  the  disruption  in  the 
Republican  ranks,  I  believed  that  it  was  a  charitable  act  in  the  interest  of  the 
axpayers  and  the  whole  people  of  the  State  of  Illinois  for  the  Democratic 
>arty  here  in  the  house  and  senate  to  step  in  and  settle  their  unsolved  and 
incompromising  difficulties,- and  relieve  the  State  of  the  suspension  and  anxietv 
onnected  with  torture  and  extravagance  which  they  have  carried  on  here  for 
hese  long,  drawn-out  months. 

I  again  wish  to  express  my  sincere  thanks  to  you  and  your  editorial  staff 
or  the  kind  sentiment  you  have  expressed  publicly  in  defense  of  the  Demo- 
ratic  party’s  action  here.  True,  I  expect  condemnation  from  both  Democrats 
nd  Republicans  for  my  action  here  in  voting  for  a  Republican;  but,  however 
hat  may  be,  I  presume  that  no  man  in  public  life  is  exempt  from  criticism 
t  some  time  or  other,  and  knowing  that  I  was  here  where  the  situation  was 
onstantly  before  me,  and  that  it  was  my  duty  to  take  some  step  in  the  in- 
erest  of  the  people,  I  did  the  best  my  judgment  would  permit  me  to  do  under 
he  prevailing  circumstances.  You  may  state,  if  you  desire,  the  substance 
f  my  communication  to  you  through  your  press,  that  there  may  be  no  mis- 
nderstanding  as  to  the  motive  of  not  only  myself  but  of  the  53  loyal  Demo- 
rats  that  voted  for  a  Republican  for  United  States  Senator  With  best 
ashes,  I  remain, 

Your  friend,  Chas.  a  White 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  preceding  part  to  which  the  letter  refers  I 
id  not  read  before,  I  did  not  know  that  the  letter  referred  to  it.  It 
>  as  follows : 


WHAT  WHITE  SAID  TO  THE  EDITOR. 

The  News-Democrat  has  an  interesting  letter  from  Charles  A.  White  the 
fif-confessed  briber  and  perjurer,  in  which  he - 

Austrian.  TV  e  object  5  that  is  a  part  of  the  newspaper  article. 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  care  to  read  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  date  of  the  letter? 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  29,  1909.  Three  days  after  the  election  of 
Ir.  Lorimer  and  five  days  before  the  close  of  the  session. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  move  that  so  much  as  he  did  read  be  stricken  out. 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  withdraw  that. 

Senator  Gamble.  What  was  the  date  of  the  newspaper  in  which 
lat  appeared?  Was  it  a  recent  publication? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  about  the  1st  of  June  of  last  year  that  is 
:y  understanding. 

Q.  What  is  the  date  Mr.  White?— A.  On  or  about  that  time. 

Q.  On  or  about  the  1st  of  June,  1909  ? 

(No  answer.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don’t  know  anything  about  the  editorial. 
Witness.  The  editorial  is  the  result  of  a  republication  of  this 
tter.  The  letter  was  practically  written  by  Mr.  Browne. 

Q.  It  was  published  in  the  Belleville  paper,  when?  That  is,  your 
tter  of  May  29,  1909,  was  published  in  the  Belleville  News-Hemo- 
Tit  when? — A.  Shortly  after  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  Shortly  after  you  wrote  this  letter?— A.  Yes,  sir:  after  he  re¬ 
ived  that  letter. 

Q.  Probably  within  a  day  or  two?  When  was  the  article — when 
as  the  paper  from  which  this  piece  was  cut  out  and  published,  that 
>es  on  and  calls  you  some  names? — A.  I  don’t  know  that. 


70024°— S.  Rep.  942,  01-3 - 9 


130  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  It  was  about  April  30, 1910. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  occurred  to  me. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  is  a  republication  of  the  letter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Anything  given  to  the  official  stenographer  as  ai 
exhibit,  we  want  only  so  much  of  it  as  goes  to  the  official  stenographs 
read  into  the  letter. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  editorial  will  not  be  received. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  do  you  know  Catherine  Woods?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  does  she  live  ? — A.  East  St.  Louis  the  last  time  I  knev 

of  her. 

Q.  She  has  lived  there  considerable  time,  hasn’t  she  ?  A.  1  can 

say  how  long  she  has  lived  there.  ,  T 

Q.  How  long  did  you  know  her  there? — A.  Oh,  I  should  sny  I  me 

her  in  the  cigar  counter  there- 


-JL  Ill  uiu  wuxAw*  ~  #  , 

Q.  (Interrupting.)  How  long,  that  is  all  I  ask .  A.  I  only  me 

her  at  her  place  of  business  at  times. 

Q.  When  did  you. first  meet  her  there? — A.  I  couldnt  say  posi 

tively :  last  fall  or  last  summer.  9 

Q.  This  summer  of  this  year  or  the  summer  and  fall  of  last  year  «- 

A.  Last  summer;  I  can’t  say  just  how  long.  .  T  a  j 

Q.  Didn’t  you  ever  meet  her  before  the  fall  of  1909  5— A.  1  don 

think  I  did :  I  may  have  met  her  before  that. 

Q.  What  is  her  business  there  ?— A.  She  runs  a  cigar  store— a  ciga 

counter — clerks  in  a  cigar  store.  .  tit 

Q.  She  owns  it  herself,  doesn’t  she?— A.  I  understand  she  ha 

bought  it  out  recently.  .  ,.  . 

Q.  She  and  her  sisters  and  her  mother  run  it? — A.  I  don  t  kmn 
who  the  people  are  that  run  it.  I  understand  she  bought  it  out  afte 
they  left  there.  I  met  her  at  the  cigar  counter. 

Q.  You  talked  with  Catherine  Woods  on  a  number  of  occasion; 
didn’t  you?— A.  I  talked  with  her  several  times;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  talked  with  her  about  this  case  and  about  what  you  wei 

going  to  do  and  what 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit  that  counsel  should  ask  him  what  he  di 

say;  this  is  not  cross-examination. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  supposed  I  had  to  lay  the  foundation  by  askm 
him  whether  he  had  any  such  a  conversation.  If  you  do  not  war 

me  to  lay  the  proper  foundation,  I  will  not. 

Austrian.  T  ou  have  laid  a  sufficient  foundation  to  suit  me. 
Q.  Catherine  Woods  testified  in  the  two  cases — two  trials  of  tr 
people  against  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  in  this  county. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that  as  immaterial  whether  she  testifae 
in  those  trials  or  what 'she  testified  to  on  those  two  trials,  and 
submit  that  any  testimony  upon  that  subject-matter  is  incompetei 
and  whether  or  not  Catherine  Woods  testified,  that  is  not  competen 
It  will  be  competent  when  she  comes  upon  the  witness  stand,  if  si 
does,  for  me  to  ask  her  whether  or  not  she  did  not  testify. 


JtJo.  1U1  11  i'U  IV7  ciuiv  uvi.  ’ '  - -  _  -  .  ~  <1 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  laying  the  foundation  for  putting  her  on. 
yjT  Austrian.  You  needn’t  ask  him  what  you  testified  to. 


Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  identify  her  as  the  same  person. 

Mr  Austrian.  Ask  him  wdiether  she  is  the  same  Catherine  \\  oo< 
that  testified  there  and  I  will  admit  that  she  did  testify.  I  will  adm 
she  is  the  same  person  so  far  as  I  know. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  131 


Mr.  Austrian  (to  witness).  That  is  the  same  person,  isn’t  she,  Mr. 
iVhite  ? — A.  I  suppose  so ;  yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  talked  with  her  in  East  St.  Louis  and  heard 
ler  testify  here?— A.  Yes,  sir;  the  same  Catherine  Woods  that  1 
allied  with  in  East  St.  Louis. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  identifies  the  individual. 

Q.  Did  you  take  Catherine  Woods  to  supper  or  dinner  or  to  a  meal 
n  St.  Louis  or  East  St.  Louis? — A.  I  think  there  was  one  occasion 
hat  we  had  a  lunch  over  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  talk  with  her  about  the  election  of  Senator 
primer,  and  the  things  about  which  we  are  interested  here? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that  as  too  indefinite. 

Q.  Did  you  take  her  out  to  a  meal? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Catherine  Woods  at  that  time  and  place  that  you 
vere  writing  a  history  of  your  life,  and  of  the  Illinois  legislature  ?— 

L  No,  sir. 

/ 

Q.  And  that  you  expected  to  make  a  fortune  out  of  it,  and  that  the 
xirimer  bunch  would  have  to  pay  you  enough  monev  to  take  care  of 
ou  the  rest  of  your  life,  and  that  if  the  Lorimer  bunch  didn’t  do  it, 
e  would  make  it  hot  for  Lorimer.  Did  you  say  that  to  her?— A.' 
io,  sir. 

Q.  Or  that  in  substance? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  state  further  in  that  conversation  that  you  were  going 
i  inn  for  Congress;  that  rich  people  of  Chicago  were  backing  you, 
nd  that  you  had  spent  $3,000  and  a  lot  of  time  in  making  a  history 
f  your  life  and  the  Illinois  legislature,  und  that  you  were  going  to 
et  it  back,  and  did  you  say— did  she  say  to  you,  “  You  will  land  in 
le  penitentiary,  Charlie,”  and  did  you  reply,  “No,  I  will  not;  I 
ave  influential  friends  who  will  protect  me.”  Was  that  conversation 
ad  there? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  that  in  substance  or  anything  like  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  time  was  some  time  in  the  summer  of  1909. 
Judge  Hanecy.  In  the  summer  or  fall  of  last  year,  about  the  time 
e  was  preparing  this  history. 

Q.  Can  you  fix  the  date — the  month  and  year — as  near  as  you 
in.  when  you  took  Catherine  Woods  to  dinner  at  St.  Louis?— A.  I 
on  t  i emembei  just  when  that  was,  just;  I  guess  it  was  one  day 
ossibly,  last  fall. 

Q.  The  fall  of  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir;  some  time  then. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  what  month?— A.  It  might  have  been  earlier 
t  the  summer;  I  can't  say  just  when. 

Q.  Where  did  you  take  her;  that  may  refresh  your  recollection, 
hen  you  left  East  St.  Louis? — A.  I  think  I  never  was  over  there 
ith  her  but  once,  to  St.  Louis,  to  my  knowledge.  I  think  we  went 
*  the  theater  or  matinee  that  afternoon  and  had  dinner  afterwards, 
think  we  went  to  some  restaurant  there  and  had  a  lunch,  a  little 
■er  or  something  like  that. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  Nagel’s? — A.  It  might  have  been  Nagel’s;  I  am 
>t  positive  about  that;  it  might  have  been. 

Q.  Did  you  go  back  from  that  trip  and  take  her  to  a  show  or 
nie  play? — A.  I  think  we  went  out  that  evening. 

Q.  In  East  St.  Louis? — A.  I  think  we  did. 

Q.  This  town  she  lived  in,  it  is  in  the  county  that  O’Fallon,  the 
wn  you  live  in,  is? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


132  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  O’Fallon  is  a  town  in  St.  Clair  County  ? — A.  1  es,  sir. 

Q.  East  St.  Louis  is  in  St.  Clair  County?— A.  Yes,  sir.  East  St. 
Louis  is  not  the  county  seat  ;  O'Fallon  is  the  county  seat.  They  are 

in  the  same  county — St.  Clair  County.  . 

Q.  O'Fallon  is  immediately  south  of  East  St.  Louis?— A.  It  is  east 

of  East  St.  Louis.  ,  .  __  w  , 

Q.  On  your  way  home  that  evening  did  you  tell  C  athenne  W  oods 

in  substance  that  you  were  going  to  get  a  lot  of  money  out  of  tne 
Lorimer  bunch — enough  to  take  care  of  you  the  rest  of  your  lire  . 

A.  No,  sir.  .  . ,  n  A 

Q.  Did  you  tell  her  that  in  substance  or  anything  like  it  l  A 

No  sir.  * 

Q.  William  Rodenberg  is  Congressman  from  your  district,  isn’t 

he?— A.  Yes,  sir.  ,  ,  ,  ,, 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Catherine  Woods  at  the  luncheon  or  meal  thai 

dav  that  you  were  going  to  get  something  out  of  Rodenbeig,  that  yoi 
were  going  to  put  him  out  of  business,  and  that  you  would  then  rui 
for  Congress  and  settle  down  and  get  married  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  or  that  in  substance  or  anything  like  it  (— A 


No.  sir. 


V_/ «  oil  •  • 

Q.  Did  you  ride  with  Catherine  Woods  on  a  street  car  running  on 
of  East  St.  Louis  at  any  time? — A.  Did  I  ride  with  her  on  a  stree, 

car  ^ 

Q.  Yes.  Did  you  take  her  on  a  street  car  any  place?— A  I  thinl 
I  have  taken  her  out  on  the  car  as  far  as  the  street  she  gets  off. 

Q.  You  got  out  and  walked  with  her  on  some  of  those  occasions  ?- 
A.  I  have  only  been  with  her  two  or  three  times;  I  would  not  b 

P°Q. 1  About  Thanksgiving  Day  did  you  walk  out  with  Catherin 
Woods  from  the  hotel  where  her  cigar  stand  is,  from  down  town  t 
her  home,  and  then  stand  and  talk  with  her  in  front  of  her  house  ?- 

A.  About  when  was  that?  ..  ,  , 

Q.  Thanksgiving  Day,  1909.-A.  Well,  I  don’t  remember;  jus 

onlv  I  walked  home  with  her  three  or  four  times.  She  gets  oil  tror 
work  at  9  o’clock  at  night,  and  I  have  been  down  with  her  at  tha 
time  and  walked  out  with  her  there,  but  I  would  not  be  positive  a 

to  the  time  or  try  to  fix  any  time  ,  ,,  ,  „  i 

O.  About  Thanksgiving  Day?— A.  I  don’t  remember  that,  and 

will  not  try  and  fix  any  date  on  those  things.  I  lia\e  only  been  wit 

her  three  or  four  times.  ,  .*  .  ^  v  ,  ,  „  T 

Q.  On  that  occasion,  about  Thanksgiving  Day,  did  you  tell  her- 

that  is.  Thanksgiving  Dav,  1909 — in  front  of  her  house  to  watch  th 
Chicago  papers,  or  did  you  tell  her  that  you  had  been  up  in  Chicag 
several  times  and  that  she  should  watch  the  papers,  for  you  wei 
going  to  make  enough  out  of  the  Lorimer  bunch  to  live  comfortabl 
and  that  you  were  going  on  a  trip  to  Europe  when  you  got  the  troubj 
started,  and  that  when  you  got  the  trouble  started  you  were  going 

get  out  and  let  them  fight  it  out  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  tell  her  that  or  that  m  substance  or  anythin 

like  it?— A.  No,  sir;  had  no  such  conversation. 

Q.  Is  it  or  not  a  fact  that  you  are  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  no 

to  prevent  you  going  away? — A.  Y  hat  is  that? 

6  Is  it  not  because  of  that  statement  that  you  are  now  in  ti 
custody  of  an  officer  of  the  State’s  attorney’s  office,  so  you  can  not  £ 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  133 

way?  Don’t  you  know  that  you  are  in  the  custody  of  an  officer 
ow? — A.  I  don’t  know  why  I  am.  I  don't  know  for  what  reason 
am  in  the  custody  of  an  officer,  except  they  told  me  that  I  was  a 
dtness  in  other  cases. 

Q.  Did  you  on  that  occasion  exhibit  to  her  a  revolver  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that,  it  makes  no  difference  whether  he 
id  or  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  can  not  take  time  with  questions  of  that 

ind. 

Q.  Did  you  on  that  occasion  say  to  Catherine  Woods — didn’t 
-atherine  Woods  say  to  you  on  that  occasion  that  you  would  get 
ito  trouble,  and  didn’t  you  answer,  “No,  I  don’t  fear;  I  have  rich 
eople  helping  me.  and  they  will  take  care  of  me.  I  am  not  afraid 
f  getting  into  trouble.  I  killed  two  men  down  South  and  nothing 
appened  to  me  for  it ;  one  of  them  I  killed  was  a  white  man,  and  the 
ther  was  a  nigger.”  Did  you  tell  her  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  that  in  substance? — A.  I  had  no  such  conversation  with  her 
t  all. 

Senator  Burrows  (to  witness).  I  understand  you  to  say  there  was 
o  such  conversation. — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  Stermer? — A.  I  met  him  through 
>rowne.  I  know  him  when  I  see  him,  and  speak  to  him.  I  met  him 
irough  Browne  at  the  Briggs  House. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  with  him  in  Chicago  on  or  about 
Liigust  19,  1909,  in  the  barroom  of  the  Briggs  House  in  Chicago,  at 
hich  were  present  you  and  William  Stermer  and  Fred  Zentner,  a 
^aveling  salesman? — A.  I  met  Mr.  Zentner  through  Mr.  Browne 
lere  in  the  Briggs  House,  and  we  had  a  conversation  there. 

Q.  In  the  barroom  of  the  hotel? — A.  Yes,  sir;  we  had  been  in  and 
ad  drinks  in  there. 

Q.  On  or  about  August  19,  1909? — A.  I  don’t  know  what  the  con- 
ersation  was;  I  might  have  been  in  there  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  can  not  impeach  the  witness  wholesale, 
'hey  can  ask  for  the  conversation  on  or  about  August  19,  1909 — did 
e  say  so  and  so  to  William  Zentner;  that  is  the  proper  way. 

Q.  On  the  19th  of  August,  1909,  did  you  have  a  conversation  with 
William  Stermer  and  Fred  Zentner,  a  traveling  salesman,  in  the 
arroom  of  the  Briggs  House? — A.  I  don’t  recall  any  conversation 
t  this  time;  we  might  have  had  some  conversation. 

Q.  When  you  three  were  present,  you  and  William  Stermer  and 
'red  Zentner? — A.  I  don’t  recall  any  conversation  now,  unless  there 
5  something  to  refresh  my  memory. 

Q.  Were  you  and  F red  Zentner  and  William  Stermer  together  in 
he  barroom  of  the  Briggs  House? — A.  We  have  been  in  the  bar;  I 
Tould  not  be  positive  about  the  dates. 

Q.  You  were  there  together? — A.  Yes,  sir;  we  have  been  in  there 
^gether,  but  I  can’t  fix  the  date.  It  was  along  during  that  month 
hat  Browne  and  I  made  a  trip  across  the  lake,  and  the  chances  are 
•  e  were  together  in  there  different  times. 

Q.  Was  it  about  August  19? — A.  I  would  not  fix  the  date  now; 
t  was  along  in  August  that  Browne  and  I  made  a  trip  across  the 
ike — Browne  and  I  and  other  people — and  the  chances  are  we  had 
conversation  in  the  buffet  there. 


134  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  In  that  conversation  did  you  say,  in  substance,  that  you  wen 
going  to  take  a  big  trip  in  the  fall  and  winter ;  that  you  were  goind 
to  your  home  at  O’Fallon  and  then  down  to  New  Orleans,  then  t< 
Cuba  and  up  to  New  York,  and  that  you  were  going  to  have  a  bid 
time  in  New  York  and  then  come  back  home  again;  and  did  eithei 
Stermer  of  Zentner  say  to  you,  “You  must  have  a  lot  of  money  tc 
spend  for  anything  like  that;”  and  did  you  then  say  no,  that  yoi 
did  not  have  a  lot  of  money,  but  that  you  were  going  to  get  it  ant 
were  going  to  get  it  without  work;  and  then  did  Zentner  ask  yoi 
how  you  were  going  to  do  that;  and  did  you  say,  “Well,  that  Lori 
mer  crowd  and  our  old  pal  Browne  have  got  to  come  across  and  d( 
it  hard  when  I  say  the  word,  and  I  am  going  to  say  it;”  then  die 
Stermer  say  to  you,  “  Have  you  got  anything  on  it?  ”  and  did  yoi 
say,  “No,  I  ain’t;  I  got  the  worst  of  it  down  there  in  Springfield 
but  that  makes  no  difference;  I  voted  for  Lorimer  and  l  am  a  Demo 
crat ;  and  1  can  say  that  I  got  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer,  and  d< 
you  suppose  they  could  stand  for  it  a  moment?  I  guess  tliey  wil 
cough  up  when  I  say  the  word  to  them;”  and  then  did  Stermei 
sav^to  you,  or  did  Zentner  say  to  you,  “God,  you  wouldn’t  trea 
Browne  that  way,  would  you?  ”  and* did  you  say,  “  I  am  looking  on 
for  White,  and  besides  Browne  wouldn’t  have  to  pay ;  that  bund 
behind  him  would  have  to;  that  it  would  not  hurt  him.”  Did  yoi 
have  that  conversation,  or  that  in  substance,  at  that  time  ani 
place? — A.  No,  sir;  or  no  other  place. 

Q.  Nothing  like  that?— A.  No,  sir;  not  there  or  any  other  place. 

Q.  I  ask  you  now  with  reference  to  Fred  Zentner;  that  was  witl 
reference  to 'Stermer.  Your  answer  to  the  preliminary  questions  as  t< 
the  conversation  at  that  time  and  place  will  be  the  same,  I  suppose 
as  they  were  in  relation  to  my  questions  in  relation  to  Stermer?— 
A.  I  stated  I  had  no  such  conversation  with  those  people  there  oi 
any  other  place. 

Q.  That  is  not  what  I  mean.  You  answered  first  about  having  s 
talk  with  Stermer  and  Zentner  together  in  the  buffet  in  the  Brigg 
House,  somewhere  about  the  19th  of  August,  1909,  but  you  did  no 
remember  the  specific  date?— A.  I  said  that  was  during  the  time  tha 
Browne  and  I  were  across  the  lake  spending  lots  of  money,  and  w< 
had  conversations  there  at  different  times,  but  I  can  not  fix  the  dates 

Q.  Your  answer  would  be  the  same  to  that  conversation  as  it  wa: 
when  I  asked  you  before,  that  is  all  I  want  to  know;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  has  answered  in  reference  to  both  of  them. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  answered  my  impeaching  question  in  refereno 
to  Stermer  alone. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  say  at  that  time  in  the  presence  of  Fred  Zentnei 
and  William  Stermer,  assistant  manager  of  the  Briggs  House 
August  19,  1909,  as  follows:  That  you  were  going  to  take  a  big  trq 
in  the  fall  and  winter;  that  you  were  going  to  your  home  in  O’Fallon 
then  to  New  Orleans,  then  to  Cuba  and  up  to  New  York,  and  tha 
you  were  going  to  have  a  large  time  in  New  York,  and  then  you  wen 
coming  home  again  ?  Did  you  say  to  him  at  that  time  and  place  ii 
that  conversation — did  they  say  to  you,  “You  must  have  a  lot  o 
money  to  take  a  trip  like  that;  ”  and  did  you  say,  “  I  don’t  have  t< 
have  a  lot  of  money,  but  I  am  going  to  get  it,  and  I  am  going  to  ge 
it  without  work;  ”  and  did  Zentner  say  to  you  at  that  time — did  yoi 
say  to  Stermer  or  in  his  presence  at  that  time,  “  I  don’t  have  to  hav< 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  135 

,  lot  of  money  ” — or  Zentner — “  but  I  am  going  to  get  it,  and  I  am 
•;oing  to  get  it  without  work:  ”  and  did  Zentner  say  to  you  at  that  time 
nd  place,  “  What  do  you  mean?  ”  and  did  you  say,  “  Well,  that  Lori- 
ner  bunch  and  Browne  have  got  to  come  across  ?  ” — A.  I  had  no 
onversation  there  or  anywhere  else. 

Q.  Neither  that  nor  that  in  substance? — A.  No,  sir;  no  such  con- 
ersation  at  all. 

•Q.  At  that  time  did  you  say  to  Zentner  that  you  were  going  to 
lave  a  big  trip  in  the  fall  and  winter;  that  you  were  going  to  your 
tome  in  OTallon,  then  to  New  Orleans,  then  to  Cuba,  and  then  up 
o  New  York,  and  that  you  were  going  to  have  a  large  time  in  New 
fork;  then  you  were  coming  back  again;  did  you  sa,y  that  to 
iim  at  that  time  and  place  in  that  conversation,  and  did  Zentner  say 
o  you  that  time  and  place,  “  You  must  have  a  lot  of  money  to  take  a 
rip  like  that,”  and  did  you  say  to  Zentner,  “  I  don’t  have  to  have  a 
ot  of  money,  but  I  am  going  to  get  it,  and  I  am  going  to  get  it  with- 
ut  work ;  ”  and  did  he  say  to  you  at  that  time,  “  What  do  you  mean  ?  ” 
nd  did  you  say,  “Well,  that  Lorimer  bunch  and  Browne  have  got 
o  come  across?”  and  did  Zentner  then  say  to  you,  “What  do  you 
nean  by  that?  ”  and  did  you  say,  “I  got  the  worst  of  it  at  Spring- 
ield ;  I  voted  for  Lorimer,  and  I  am  a  Democrat,  and  if  I  say  I  got 
noney  for  voting  for  him  I  guess  they  will  come  over,  won’t  they  ?  ” 
nd  did  Zentner  say  to  you  at  that  time  and  place,  “  My  God,  White, 
'on  wouldn’t  do  that  to  Browne,  would  you  ?  ”  and  did  you  say  in 
esponse  to  that,  “  I  am  looking  out  for  Charlie;  and,  besides,  Browne 
wouldn’t  have  to  stand  for  it.”  Did  that  conversation  take  place  at 
hat  time? — A.  No,  sir;  or  no  other  time. 

Q.  Neither  that  nor  that  in  substance? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Never  at  any  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Or  no  other  place  ? — A.  No,  sir ;  no  other  place. 
Lis  man  was  a  confidential  friend  of  Browne’s. 

Q-  Do  you  knowr  Thomas  Kern,  a  member  of  the  legislature? — - 
V.  Yes,  sir;  I  don’t  know  him  any  too  intimately;  I  have  seen  him 
nd  know  who  he  is. 

Q.  He  was  on  the  same  committee  you  were,  wasn’t  he? — A.  I 
hink  he  was  chairman  of  the  committee  on  labor  and  industrial 

ffairs. 

Q.  Of  which  you  were  a  member? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  same  session  of  the  legislature  that  you  were? — A;  Yes, 

ir. 

Q.  Thomas  Kern  was  a  member  of  the  session  before  that,  when 
rou  were  there  as  a  lobbyist  for  some  labor  union,  wasn’t  he? — A.  He 
vas  in  the  forty-fifth  general  assembly.  I  didn’t  know  him  at  that 
ime;  I  may  have  been  introduced  to  him. 

Q.  You  knew  who  he  was? — A.  I  knew  him  by  sight. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  with  Thomas  Kern  just  after 
Senator  Lorimer  was  elected  United  States  Senator  and  just  before 
Re  close  of  the  session  out  in  the  cloakroom  of  the  house  of  repre- 
entatives,  in  Springfield? — A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t  recollect  having  any 
onversation  with  him  at  all  in  the  cloakroom. 

Q.  Did  you  in  the  house  any  place? — A.  Oh,  I  don’t  remember 
iow;  I  had  very  little  to  do  with  him.  I  don’t  think  T  ever  had  any 
onversation  except  one  thing  particularly.  He  mentioned  that  dur- 
ng  the  special  session  he  saw  Browne  and  myself  in  Michigan 


136  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

with  certain  people  and  recalled  the  circumstances,  etc.,  and  the  plac< 
where  he  met  us.  I  didn’t  remember  of  seeing  him  over  there. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  Kern  about  defeating  a  bill  or  holding  up  * 
bill  that  was  before  a  committee  of  which  he  was  chairman  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  When? 

Q.  (Continuing.)  So  you  could  get  some  money  out  of  it - A 

(Interrupting.)  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  (Continuing.)  On  the  27th  of  May,  1909? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Known  as  the  “Women’s  eight-hour  bill?  ” — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  You  didn’t  have  any  such  conversation  with  him? — A.  Xo,  sir 

Mr.  Austrian.  Do  you  expect  to  call  Mr.  Kern  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then  I  submit  that  he  has  got  to  make  the  questioi 
more  specific,  if  he  desires  to  impeach  the  witness. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  going  to ;  this  is  merely  preliminary. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Thomas  Kern  in  the  corridor  of  the  statehoust 
the  27th  day  of  May,  1909,  the  next  day  after  Senator  Lorimer  was 
elected,  “  Kern,  are  you  going  to  report  the  women’s  ten-hour  bill  in?  ’ 
and  did  he  say  to  you,  “  I  surely  am;  I  am  with  that  bill.*'  Did  yov 
say  then  to  Kern,  “  What  do  you  do  that  for.  If  you  will  hold  it  uj 
there  will  be  something  in  it  for  us,”  and  did  Kern  then  say  to  yoi 
“  There  can’t  be  anything  in  this  bill  for  me;  I  am  not  that  kind.”  anc 
did  you  then  say  to  Kern,  “  What  the  hell;  are  you  afraid?  ”  and  die 
Kern  then  say  to  you,  “  Xo ;  I  am  not  afraid,  but  I  am  going  to  repor 
the  bill  in.”  Then  did  you  say  to  Kern  “  Will  you  hold  it  up  for  jus 
a  little  while?  ”  and  did  Kern  say  to  you  “  Oh,  no;  I  will  report  it  ii 
just  as  soon  as  the  clerk  calls  for  the  report  of  committees;  I  will  no 
hold  it  for  a  minute,”  and  did  you  then  laugh  and  walk  away  and  say 
“  I  thought  you  were  all  right,”  and  did  Kern  say  “  So  I  am.’'  Die 
you  have  that  conversation? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  With  Thomas  Kern,  chairman  of  that  committee? — A.  Xo,  sir 
no  such  conversation  took  place. 

Q.  Nothing  like  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  the  same  time,  did  you  have  this  conversation  with  Thoma; 
Kern,  did  you  say  to  Thomas  Kern,  “  Was  there  anything  doing  oi 
that  senatorship  election  of  Lorimer  yesterday  ?  ”  and  did  Kern  say 
“Not  that  I  know  of;  I  heard  of  nothing  of  the  kind;  you  are  * 
Democrat  and  voted  for  him,  and  you  ought  to  know  if  there  was 
why  do  you  ask  ?  ”  Did  you  say  to  Kern,  “  Well,  I  didn’t  know,  1 
thought  there  was;  I  thought  that  Browne  was  double  crossing  us;  ] 
thought  I  was  being  double  crossed,”  and  did  Kern  say,  “  I  knov 
nothing  about  it  at  all,  and  I  have  heard  nothing.”  Did  such  a  con 
versation  take  place? — A.  No,  sir;  no  such  conversation  took  place. 

Q.  Nothing  like  it? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  Russell? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  is  a  labor  leader  here? — A.  Supposed  to  be. 

Q.  And  has  been  for  some  years? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  secretary  of  the  labor  lobby  at  Springfield  and  of  th* 
labor  lobbies  in  different  parts  of  the  State? — A.  I  didn’t  know  him 
I  was  not  in  the  conferences  as  a  body  at  any  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  have  identified  him  and  it  makes  no  differenc< 
whether  he  was  the  first  secretary,  under  secretary,  or  king  secretary 
you  have  identified  the  man. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  137 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  show  that  William  Russell  was  labor  lob- 
wist  and  secretary  of  all  the  labor  lobbyists  from  all  the  different 
rganizations  that  had  representatives  there  from  the  State  at  large. 
Mr.  Austrian.  This  is  for  the  purpose  of  impeaching? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don't  care  to  waste  time  on  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  have  already  wasted  a  lot  of  time  asking  what 
e  knew  about  it. 

Q.  During  the  month  of  March,  1910,  did  you  have  a  conversation 
rith  T\  illiam  M.  Russell  on  Madison  street,  between  Clark  and  Dear- 
«  ^  i  ^  of  Chicago  ?— A.  What  is  the  conversation? 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation? — A.  I  might  have;  I  may  have 
let  him  and  had  a  talk  with  him. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  him? — A.  I  think  I  met  him  in  the  sprint  of 
910.  1 

Q.  At  that  place  at  that  time? — A.  Somewhere  on  Madison  street; 
recollect  of  meeting  him  here. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  him  at  some  nickel  theater? — A.  I  think  it  was 
i  the  spring,  some  time  this  spring.  I  met  him  in  one  of  those 
-cent  theaters  on  Madison  street  there. 

Q.  Between  Clark  and  Dearborn,  was  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  walk  with  him  from  there  to  the  Palmer  House  and 
leet  a  state  senator  there?— -A.  Yes,  sir;  he  walked  with  me  at  the 
me  I  met  him  there,  but  I  will  not  fix  a  date,  but  it  was  in  the  spring, 
tid  we  met  Senator  Gibson  at  the  Palmer  House. 

Q.  State  Senator  Gibson? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  that  conversation,  did  Russell  say  to  you,  “  You  are  flying 
retty  high  for  a  labor  scape,”  and  did  you  say  to  Russell.  “  Yes; ‘and 
will  fly  a  damn  sight  higher  before  I  get  through.”  Then  did  you 
iy  to  him,  “  Do  you  know  anything  about  senatorial  graft  in  ‘the 
gislature,”  and  did  William  Russell  respond  to  you,  “No;  I  was 
oking  after  labor  matters  and  know  nothing  about  any  other  sub- 
ct.”  Then  did  you  say  to  Russell,  “  The  leaders  gave  me  the  worst 
‘  ^  in  the  legislature  and  I  am  going  to  make  them  put  me  on  Easy 
reet,  or  I  will  make  it  damn  hot  for  them.”  And  did  Russell  say 
•  you  at  that  time,  **  Charlie,  labor  has  many  friends  among  the 
aders  on  both  sides;  don’t  do  anything  that  will  hurt  the  Tabor 
ganizations  in  the  future.”  And  did  you  say  to  Russell,  u  I  don’t 
ve  a  damn  for  them,  I  am  looking  out  for  Charlie  White.”  And 
d  Russell  say  to  you  at  that  time  and  place,  “  If  you  know  anything 
>out  graft  tell  me  about  it  and  I  will  make  it  worth  your  while.” 
hen  did  you  say  to  Russell,  “  I  have  no  information  on  the  subject 
hatever,”  or  did  Russell  say  to  you,  “  I  have  no  information  on  the 
1 ‘fleet  whatever  and  know  nothing  and  have  heard  nothing  about 
aft.”  Did  that  conversation  take  place? — A.  No;  that  conversa- 
on  did  not  take  place,  but  there  was  mention  made  there  of  the 
orimer  election,  and  Russell  admitted  to  knowing  from  what  sources 
me  of  that  money  came  from  and  made  mention  of  the  fact  that 
e  Tribune  editor — Russell  told  me  knew  all  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  James  B.  Joy?— A.  I  never  heard  of  him  before 
itil  his  name  was  mentioned  in  a  crowd  of  people. 

Q.  You  now  know  him?— A.  T  s*iw  him  testify.  He  walked  out 

me,  but  I  didn't  know  who  he  was  until  they  pointed  him  out 

me. 


138  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  He  is  a  saloon  keeper  at  Springfield? — A.  That  is  what  they 

told  me;  I  didn’t  know  him.  .  ,  ,  ... 

“  He  is  the  same  man  that  you  heard  testify  or  who  did  testily 

i  criminal  court  of  Cook  County?— A.  I  didn’t  hear  him  testify 
tt  •  j. i 9  A  T  mmnnco  Lp  is  fho  same  man.  1  didn  t 


Q. 

in  the 


tne  criminal  court  ur  cuuit  vuumj  •  ^  . T  j. ,  y 

Q.  He  is  the  same  man  ? — A.  I  suppose  he  is  the  same  man,  1  man  t 
know  him,  he  was  pointed  out  to  me  when  going  out. 

O  You  know  he  keeps  a  saloon - A.  (Interrupting.)  1  don  t 

know  only  his  name  being  told  me  in  the  criminal  court;  besides  he 
was  called  on  the  witness  stand,  that  I  know,  and  they  asked  me  it  I 
knew  him  and  I  told  them,  “  No;  I  never  heard  of  him  before. 

Q.  You  lived  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  in  Springfield  ? — A.  That 

is  where  I  stopped.  , .  . 

Q  424  Monroe  street  was  where  Joy  s  saloon  was^  three  blocks 

south  of  there?— A.  I  don’t  know  anything  about  it,  where  his 

'(h'Vou  know  where  424  East  Monroe  street  is? — A.  I  don’t  know 
except  the  street  passing  in  front  of  the  hotel  and  Capitol  avenue. 

I  did  not  familiarize  myself  with  the  city. 

O  During  the  month  of  May,  1909,  didn’t  Mr.  Joy  have  a  saloon 
across  the  street  from  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel?— A.  I  don’t  know 
Q.  Directly  across  the  street?— A.  I  don’t  know  whether  he  had 

°rQ.  How  long  did  you  stop  at  the  St.  Nicholas? — A.  I  made  that 

mv  stopping  place  during  the  session.  .  , 

Q.  That  session  commenced  early  in  January  and  continued  until 

the  4th  of  June? — A.  A  es,  sir.  .  ,, 

O  Did  you  stop  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  as  a  lobbyist  during  the 

previous  session  of  the  legislature  ?-A.  When  I  was  representing 
labor  there  before  the  committees,  if  you  call  that  lobbying,  we  will 

*etQ*  You* stopped  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel?— A.  Yes,  sir;  and  the 
Silas  Hotel,  an  annex  to  the  St.  Nicholas.  It  was  all  managed  bj 

John  McCreary  there.  _  .,  9  *  r™  a:lflC 

Q.  Just  an  alley  between  and  a  bridge,  across  5  A.  lhe  bila. 

Hotel  is  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  street  entirely.  . 

Q.  Diagonally  across?— A.  Yes,  sir;  but  there  is  no  connectior 

thQYhererisgnowTbridge  across  the  alley?— A.  Yes,  sir;  a  nev 

addition  that  has  been  built  recently.  ,  ^  . 

O  Did  you  have  a  conversation  m  Joys  saloon  or  the  saloon  o 

Jov  &  Keifner,  424  East  Jefferson  street,  Springfield,  Ill.,  a  few  day 
before  William  Lorimer  was  elected  United  States  Senator.  A.  1 

that.  Im^ot  through  yet.  And  in  that  conversation,  did  yoi 

sav  “  I  could  have  voted  for  'Stringer  for  Senator  for  the  next  sevei 
years  and  get  no  pay  for  it.  and  there  would  be  nothing  doing  or  n 
it  for  me,”  and  that  you  were  going  to  vote  for  William  Lonmei 
although  there  was  nothing  in  it  for  you,  that  you  tried  to  get  Lorime 
and  Browne  and  others  to  come  across  with  some  money  for  so  doing 
but  had  failed,  but  that  notwithstanding  you  were  going  to  vote  to 
Lorimer  because  you  knew  that  Lorimer  would  have  a  lot  ot  job; 
and  that  Browne 'had  promised  to  help  you  get  a  ]ob,  and  besides  1 
Lorimer  was  elected  you  would  then  make  Lorimer  and  Browne  coni 
across  good  and  plenty  with  the  coin,  because  Lorimer  had  lots 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  139 

political  enemies  and  people  would  readily  believe  that  you  and  other 
Democrats  like  you  who  had  voted  for  Lorimer  got  money  for  so 

Joing.  Did  you  have  that  conversation  at  that  time  and  place? _ A. 

No,  sir;  or  no  other  place. 

Q.  With  Mr.  Joy? — A.  No,  sir;  or  no  other  place.  I  don’t  even 
mow  the  man. 

Q.  Do  you  know  George  Gloss,  a  street-car  motorman  in  Chicago 
A  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  is  the  same  man  who  testified  in  the  Browne  case? _ A. 

Fes,  sir ;  he  testified. 

Q.  Mr.  W  hite,  you  testified  here  on  your  direct  examination  in 
inswer  to  Mr.  Austrian,  that  the  conversation — that  the  time  you 
^ot  $850,  the  last  of  the  balance  of  what  you  call  the  Lorimer  money 

m  the  16th  of  June - A.  (Interrupting.)  I  said - 

Q.  (Continuing.)  And  on  the  cross-examination  you  testified  that 
he  $50  was  paid  to  you — strike  that  out,  I  will  reform  the  question — - 

>n  your  direct  examination,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Austrian - 

Mr.  Austrian  (interrupting).  I  object  to  that;  it  is  not  competent 
>r  proper  practice  to  prove  a  witness’s  testimony  on  direct  examina- 
lon.  Counsel  can  deliberately  put  any  question  he  wants  on  cross- 

xamination,  but  it  is  incompetent  to  repeat  any  question - 

Judge  Hanecy  (interrupting).  I  want  him  to  tell  me  just  the  right 
late.  In  the  last  trial  of  the  Browne  case  they  called  two  witnesses, 
i  Mr.  Simmons,  a  very  large  contractor  here,  who  testified  that  he 
vas  present - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  what  he  said  or  what  he  testified  to  in 
he  Browne  case. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  lay  the  foundation  for  calling  Mr.  Sim- 
aons  to  testify  to  something,  and  this  witness  testified  upon  that 
rial  that  the  $850  was  paid  to  him  in  the  Briggs  House,  and  that  the 
50  was  paid  to  him  on  the  16th  and  the  $850  was  paid  to  him  on  the 
7th.  Mr.  Simmons  and  another  witness,  whose  name  has  gone  from 
le  now,  testified  that  they  saw  Mr.  White  and  Mr.  Browne  talking  in 
lie  lobby  of  the  Briggs  House  on  the  17th  of  that  month,  and  that 
Tr.  White  borrowed  or  asked  for  a  loan  from  Mr.  Browne  of  either 
■25  or  $50,  and  that  Mr.  Broavne  loaned  it  to  him  on  that  occasion. 
>n  the  direct  examination  here  this  witness  testified  that  he  received 
50  on  the  loth  of  that  month  and  $850  on  the  16th  of  that  month, 
arying  the  date  there  so  as  to  get  it  on  a  day,  as  we  assume — and  if 
;  is  not  so  I  want  him  to  correct  it— as  we  assume  he  showed  that  it 
as  a  different  date  that  he  got  the  $850  from  that  testified  to  by 
Ir.  Simmons,  a  reputable  business  man,  and  the  other  gentleman. 
J1 1  want  is  to  call  his  attention  to  that  and  ask  if  that  is  the  correct 

ate.  He  says  now  that  is  the  correct  date,  the  15th  when  he  p*ot  the 

>0 - 

Senator  Burrows.  Ask  the  question. 

The  W  itness.  I  think  my  testimony  will  show  that  T  stated  that 
was  on  the  16th  that  T  received  the  $50  and  on  the  17th  I  received 
ie  $850.  I  do  not  think  I  varied  from  that  a  particle. 

Q.  that  is  right,  is  it? — A.  According  to  the  documents;  those 
ocuments  are  here  and  they  will  show  that  1  received  that  monev  and 
aid  off  bills  in  East  St.  Louis  with  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  did  that  so  there  would  be  no  conflict  in  this  re- 
ard  as  to  the  date  of  the  payment. 


140  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


The  Witness.  T  fix  that  date  by  the  documents  I  have  here  of  bills 

received  on  the  18th.  .  «.  •  f 

Senator  Burrows.  You  stated  the  date;  that  is  sufficient. 

O.  Mr.  White,  you  testified  on  your  direct  examination  here  that 
Mr.  Browne  first  talked  with  you  about  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for 
Senator  on  the— or  had  the  conversation  with  you  m  your  room  at  the 
St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  in  room  133,  I  think,  on  the  night  of  the  -  t .  i 

May,  1909? _ A.  No:  Mr.  Browne  came  to  my  room,  133,  ancl  in- 

vited  me  to  his  room,  where  the  conversation  took  place. 

Q.  That  is  wliat  I  wanted.  Now - A.  (Interrupting.)  He  in¬ 

vited  me  to  his  room. 

O  Mr.  Browne  went  to  your  room,  133  t  A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  Mr.  Browne’s  number? — A.  One  hundred  and  one. 

O.  On  the  same  floor  your  room  is?  A.  1  es,  sir. 

Q.  About  50  feet  away  from  it? — A.  I  should  ]udge  a  little  mor 

than  that  the  wav  you  turn  down  the  hall. 

Q  Fifty  to  seventy-five ? — A.  May  be  that;  I  would  not  fix  the 

11  Q.'xhe  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  has  a  telephone  service  in  each  room?— 

A.  The  rooms  I  have  been  in  have  ..  .,  ,  , 

Q.  Had  in  Browne’s  room,  didn  t  it  ? — A.  I  think  it  had. 

Q.  When  Browne  wanted  you.  generally  when  m  his  room,  he  gen¬ 
erally  telephoned  to  your  room  and  asked  you  to  come  to  his  room . 

\  Mr.  Browne  didn’t  generally  call  me  in  his  room  by  Tllone  or 
messenger  or  otherwise.  I  don't  recollect  of  him  sending  for  me  to 

come  in  there 


q  (Interrupting.)  You  say  he  did  come  to  your  room,  133,  on  the 

night  of  the  24th  of  May,  1909  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time?— A.  Oh,  it  was— I  don't  remember  the  exact 

fimp _ between  10  and  2  o’clock.  .  •  o  \ 

Q.  Between  10  o’clock  at  night  and  2  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

Y  q.  Swho  was  in  your  room  when  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  went  then 

and  asked  you  to  come  to  his  room  ? 

Mr  Austrian.  I  object  to  that  as  immaterial  That  does  no 
prove  to  tend  any  issue  in  the  case.  I  have  not  asked  him  who  w 

in  his  room  at  the  time.  ovnirlpt 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  sir;  you  very  carefully  and  skillfully  avoidet 

th  Senator  Burrows.  The  testimony  will  be  admitted  for  the  present 
Senator  Gamble.  I  think  it  was  stated  in  the  other  exammat 

that  there  were  two  parties  in  the  room. 

Mr  Austrian.  No  ;  that  is  what  you  heard  read. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  had  that  in  mmd,  probably  from  some  othe 

Mr  Austrian.  No  such  conversation  took  place  there? 

TnrW  Hanecy.  I  object  to  his  advising  the  witness. 

Mr  ^Austrian.  I  sav  the  evidence  will  not  disclose  that  any  cor 
versaiion  took  place  except  Browne  invited  White  into  Ins  room.  1 

that  correct  ?  .  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  it  is  not  correct.  rvv  Rrowr 

O  Who  was  in  vour  room  at  the  time  that  Lee  O  Neill 
weni  into°yourS room  on  the  night  of  the  24th  of  May,  1909  ?-A.  Ot 
Yarborough  and  Sidney  Yarborough. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  141 


Q.  hat  does  Otis  do? — A.  A  conductor  on  the  electric  railway. 

Q.  What  is  Sidney’s  business? — A.  Pie  is  conductor  on  the  Mil¬ 
waukee  Electric  Railway. 

Q.  The  Chicago  and  Milwaukee  Electric  Railway? — A.  I  don’t 
know  the  name  of  the  railroad  company.  It  is  the  electric  road  run¬ 
ning  from  Milwaukee. 

Q.  Where  was  Sidney  and  Otis  Yarborough  when  you  say  Browne 
came  into  your  room  on  that  night  ? — A.  In  bed. 

Q.  Together? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  that  room? — xV.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  they  asleep  when  Browne  went  there? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Browne  have  any  talk  with  you  in  their  room  at  that 
time? — A.  Oh,  he  said  a  few  words;  he  made  some  little  jocular  joke 
about  three  being  in  the  room  and  invited  me  to  go  to  his  room,  he 
wanted  to  talk  with  me. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Counsel  said,  “  In  their  room.” 

The  Witness.  I  meant  in  my  room. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  said  in  their  room. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  in  his  room. 

Q.  Plow  many  beds  Tvere  there  in  that  room  at  that  time?— A. 
Two  beds. 

Q.  II  as  there  not  but  one  ? — A.  No,  sir ;  there  was  two. 

Q.  Now,  did  Sidney  and  Otis  Yarborough  hear  the  conversation 
between  Browne  and  you  ? — A.  They  heard  Browne  invite  me  to 
his  room. 


Q.  And  the  jocular  remark,  whatever  that  was? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I 
don’t  recollect  exactly  the  words  that  he  used  now,  but  some  sort - 

Q.  (Interrupting.)  What  is  your  best  recollection  as  to  what  it 
was? — A.  Some  sort  of  a  remark  about  three  being  crowded  in  one 
little  room;  something  about  that. 

Q.  It  was  a  little  room,  was  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  mentioned  three,  didn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Three  being  in  that  room;  you  and  the  two  Yarboroughs? — A. 
Yes,  sir;  I  don’t  know  whether  he  said  three  or  not;  he  may  not  have 
used  the  word  “  three;  ”  I  will  not  be  positive  about  it. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  known  the  two  Yarboroughs? — A.  I  have 
known  them  possibly  four,  five,  or  six  years. 

Q.  You  got  one  of  them  a  job  at  the  statehouse.  Did  you  get  him 
in  the  pay  roll  in  Springfield? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Can  the  committee  see  any  materiality  about  that 
estimony?  You  can  state  any  state  of  facts  you  want  to,  but  tell  me 
die  materiality  upon  any  theory  of  this  line  of  examination. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  propose  to  show  that  this  witness,  because  he 
vas  a  member  of  the  legislature,  he  had  the  right  to  appoint  somebody 
o  a  job  and  get  him  on  the  pay  roll,  and  got  Browne  to  put  one  of 
lie  1  arboroughs — I  don’t  remember  which  one — Otis — on  the  pay  roll 
it  Springfield,  and  this  Yarborough  drew  the  salary  all  the  time  dur¬ 
ing  the  full  session  and  at  the  time  of  the  first  trial  of  The  People 
igainst  Browne  here,  neither  of  the  Yarboroughs  were  called  as  wit- 
lesses  by  the  prosecution  or  anybody  else.  That  on  the  second  trial 
>f  1  lie  People  aga  nst  LeeO’Neill  Browne,  the  prosecution  called  both 
>f  the  1  arboroughs  and  they  were  both  sworn  and  both  testified 


142  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


taken  to  corroborate  the  testimony  of  White.  Both  of  the  T  arjporoughs 
testified  that  they  were  in  his  room  and  that  they  heard  the  conver¬ 
sation,  and  that  they  heard  Browne  ask  this  witness  to  go  to  his 
(Browne’s)  room,  where  this  witness  stated  Browne  first  made  the 
proposition  to  White  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  in  which  Browne  said,  he 
would  give  White  $1,000  for  voting  for  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  don’t  pretend  they  were  present? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  but  they  were  put  on  to  corroborate  the  visit 
of  Browne  to  his  room,  and  inviting  him  into  his  room,  and  then 
White  stated  the  other  conversation  in  Browne’s  room,  that  Browne 
asked  him  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  and  they  were  to  pay  him  $1,000  fori 
it.  They  showed  by  William  Gloss  and  William  Gloss’s  wife  and  a 
street-car  motorman  in  Chicago,  by  the  name  of  Bell,  that  one  of  the 
Yarborough’s — Sidney  arborough — was  in  Chicago  on  the  after¬ 

noon  and  night  of  the  24th  of  May,  and  that  he  slept  at  the  house  of 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Gloss  and  had  breakfast  there  the  next  morning,  on 
Springfield  avenue  in  Chicago,  and  that  the  birthday  of  Gloss  s  boyj 
was  the  26th  of  May,  and  on  the  25th  T  arborough  ga\e  the  boy  a 
Quarter  to  buy  a  baseball  bat  for  his  birthday,  and  that  he  then  went 
back  to  Springfield.  Bell  testified  that  he  met  Sidney  Yarborough  on  a 
street  car  that  Gloss  was  running  and  that  they  rode  together  on  the 
evening  of  the  24th  of  May,  when  it  was  said  that  the  two  l  ar¬ 
bor  ouebs  were  in  this  witness’s  bed.  Then  we  called  the  conductor 
of  thelllinois  Central  and  proved  by  him  that  Yarborough  rode  from 
Chicago  to  Springfield  on  the  afternoon  or  the  evening  of  the  25th 
of  May  and  rode^on  White’s  pass,  and  signed  White’s  name  to  the 
pass  And  we  produced  the  pass,  or  it  was  produced  there,  and  on 
the  pass  Yarborough  rode  from  Chicago  to  Springfield  on  the  after¬ 
noon  of  the  25th  of  May.  Now,  that  is  the  reason  why  they  didn 
ask  him  who  was  present  in  that  room,  because  they  knew  what  would 

f°W<Twant  to  show  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  and  that  this 
corroboration  that  they  want  to  show  of  White’s  testimony,  that  he 
was  bribed,  corroborated  by  the  Yarboroughs.  They  called  both  ol 
the  Yarboroughs  at  the  last  trial  and  did  not  call  either  of  them  ai 
the  first  trial,  although  one  of  them  had  been  on  the  pay  roll  of  the 
State  at  Springfield  during  the  entire  session.  I  want  to  show  then 
relation  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  White  knew  at  the  time  ev 
the  first  trial,  and  although  he  could  easily  have  had  1  arborough 
and  Yarborough  said  he  would  go  to  Hades— only  he  used  the  othei 

wor4 _ for  White.  He  said  Broivne  invited  him  into  his  room.  J 

want  to  show  the  relationship  between  one  of  the  Yarboroughs  anc 
White ;  that  White  put  him  on  the  pay  roll  all  the  time  lie  was  there 
that  he  was  working  for  White,  and  not  m  Springfield  or  Last  fet 

Louis.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  question  ? 

(Last  question  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

The  Witness.  I  find,  Mr.  Chairman - 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  him  answer. 


The  Witness.  Mr.  Browne  did  get  him  a  place  through  my  sug 


gea°You  took  him  from  Springfield— Sidney  Yarborough— yon  too 
Otis  Yarborough  from  Springfield  back  to  O'Fallon  with  you  as  you 
secretary,  didn’t  you? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  143 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  Judge  Hanecy  has  talked  so  long  that 
here  was  no  opportunity  for  anyone  else  to  reply,  and  the  committee 
referred  to  rule  rather  than  listen  to  another  argument.  It  is  the 
■ule  in  this  State,  as  well  as  in  other  States  in  the  Union,  and  there 
re  no  cases  to  the  contrary,  that  you  can  not  impeach  a  witness  upon 
n  immaterial  issue.  You  have  heard  from  Judge  Hanecy  a  long 
tatement  of  what  the  first  trial  and  second  trial  showed,  that  he 
ntends  to  try  Otis  Yarborough.  I*  don't  know  whether  he  will  be 
ailed  as  a  witness  or  not ;  whether  he  was  in  the  room  on  the  24th  of 
Jay,  1909,  when  Browne  invited  White  to  his  room  is  not  material ; 
whether  he  invited  him  from  his  room  or  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  or 
rom  the  street.  It  is  an  immaterial  issue.  Mot  whether  he  was  in 
iis  room,  but  the  question  is  whether  or  not  Browne  paid  him  any 
loney  or  made  a  corrupt  agreement;  but  you  can  not  try  this  issue 
y  calling  witness  after  witness,  railroad  conductors,  for  the  purpose 
f  trying  this  false  issue,  whether  Otis  Yarborough  did  sleep  in  his 
oom  that  night. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  propose  to  show  the  methods  he  used  here  to  try 
a  fix  a  case  or  charge  against  one  of  the  members  of  the  honorable 
ody  that  the  members  of  this  committee  are  sitting  in.  We  have  a 
ight  to  show  the  methods  that  are  adopted  here,  and  the  character 
f  the  men  and  their  acts  in  this  very  transaction,  and  that  is  why 
say  it  is  competent.  We  are  not  trying  to  impeach  anybody;  we 
re  trying  to  show  the  methods  by  which  this  witness  and  this  asso- 
iate  with  him  and  back  of  him  are  trying  to  malign  Senator  Lori- 
ler,  a  member  of  the  body  that  you  gentlemen  are  honorably  repre- 
mted  here  as  its  members.  That  is  why  I  am  offering  it,  and  I  sub¬ 
lit  that  it  is  entirely  competent.  That  this  committee  and  no  other 
immittee  will  shut  its  eyes  to  the  actual  facts  that  surround  the 
larges  and  take  the  simple,  plain  statement  or  the  false  statement 
f  one  of  the  witnesses  and  not  look  to  the  question  of  who  the  wit- 
ess  is  or  what  is  his  purpose  or  motive  in  doing  what  he  has  done. 
lecRuse  if  we  show  he  is  false  in  one  thing,  the  rule  of  law  is  that  if 
e  is  false  in  one  thing  he  is  false  in  all—  falsus  in  uno  falsas  in 
nimbus.  No  man  in  the  United  States  Senate  or  other  honorable 
ody  can  be  attacked  or  maligned  without  reflecting  upon  every  man 
lere  in  some  degree,  not  necessarily  on  the  individuals,  but  it  at- 
iches  to  the  body  of  which  they  are  a  member,  and  thereby  reflects 
pon  every  member  of  the  body. 

And  I  submit  we  have  a  right  to  show  the  methods  and  manner  bv 
hich  they  are  carrying  on  this  proceeding,  and  they  carried  it  on 
nce  they  procured  the  indictment  of  Browne  down  to  the  time  when 
ie  jury  said,  under  the  instructions,  said  that  Browne  was  not 
niltv,  and  I  submit  that  in  this  case  it  is  entirely  competent  and 
ltirelv  proper  to  introduce  it,  and  it  would  be  highly  improper 
>  Senator  Lorimer  and  those  representing  him  not  to  place  those 
icts  before  this  committee,  and  through  this  committee  to  the  larger 
;dy. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  do  you  propose  to  show  by  this  witness? 
Judge  Hanecy.  T  want  to  show  the  relation  between  these  two  men. 
Senator  Burrows.  Yarborough? 

Judge  Hanecy.  One  of  the  Yarboroughs  and  White — Otis  Yar- 

) rough  was  his  employee,  but  did  not  do  any  work  for  him  first _ 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  it  you  want  to  know  from  him? 


144  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER 


Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  know  if  he  did  not  act 
as  his  secretary. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  the  question. 

Senator  Paynter.  The  effect  of  your  statement  would  be  this: 
That  White  was  acquainted  with  the  Yarboroughs;  that  if  they  com¬ 
mitted  perjury  in  trying  to  fasten  upon  Lee  O'Neill  Browne,  that 
this  man  must  have  known  that  they  were  committing  perjury,  and 
stating  that  they  were  in  his  room  at  that  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  and  lie  read  the  testimony. 

Senator  Paynter.  They  are  still  trying  to  connect,  in  this  proceed¬ 
ing.  Lee  O'Neill  Browne  with  this  other  transaction,  and  show  the 
character  of  this  man  in  introducing,  in  addition,  testimony  of  men 

whom  you  claim  committed  perjury.  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  and  not  only  the  character  of  the  witness,  but 
the  instruments  which  were  used  to  besmirch  Browne,  and  through 
Browne  to  besmirch  Senator  Lorimer  and  the  Senate  of  the  United 

St  a t  es 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  permit  you  to  show  that 
but  will  consider  the  weight  of  it  later.  You  may  answer  the  ques 

tion,  Mr.  White. 

A.  What  is  the  question? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Otis  Yarborough  went  to  work  m  the  legislature 
bv  vour  procurement,  or  was  on  the  pay  rolls  of  the  legislature  b} 
your  procurement,  and  was  taken  by  you  back  to  your  home  anc 
acted  as  your  secretarv? — A.  I  had  no  occasion  foi  a  secietaiy,  anc 
consequently  had  no  secretary. 

Q.  Didn’t  he  work  for  you?— A.  He  did  things  around  the  office 

but  not  as  a  secretary,  because  I  never  needed  one. 

Q.  I  don’t  care  about  what  you  needed.  He  did  go  along  witl 


you 


Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute;  let  him  finish  the  answer. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  worked  for  you  how  long  ? — A.  I  could  not  sa; 

how  long.  I  don’t  know  myself. 

Q.  Well,  about  how  long?— A.  I  have  no  records  of  it  here. 

Q.  Well,  about  how  long?— A.  Well,  possibly  a  month,  and  mayb 

a  little  longer  than  that. 

Q.  Did  you  get  him  the  job  he  got  with  the  railway  compan. 

afterwards? — A.  No.  _  .  ,  ,  v 

Q.  Did  vou  assist  in  getting  it?— A.  I  had  nothing  to  do  wit 

anvthing  except  that  he  gave  me  a  name  as  a  reference  in  makin 
out  his  application  and  filing  it,  and  they  wrote  to  me  and  wanted  t 

know  about  him,  and  I  answered  the  letter.  . 

O.  Mr.  White,  you  testified  as  a  witness  at  the  first  trial  ot  tii 
People  v.  Browne  in  the  criminal  court  of  Cook  County  here,  didn 

you?— A.  Yes,  sir.  T  n  j 

"  Q.  Were  these  questions  asked  you  and  did  you  answer  as  1  react 

Question 


Senator  Burrows.  This  was  the  Browne  trial? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Senator. 

Senator  Burrows.  Go  on.  It  is  for  the  purpose  of  impeaching  th 

witness?  .  ....  .  .  ,  i 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  giving  his  opinion  as  to  \\n« 

he  wanted  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer,  I  will  read  back  a  little  t 
show  the  connection. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  145 


Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute.  I  do  not  pretend  to  know  every 
ling  about  the  rules  of  evidence ;  but  if  you  want  to  impeach  a  wit- 
ess  you  have  got  to  put  the  question  to  him:  Did  you  not  on  such 
nd  such  a  trial,  or  were  you  not  on  such  and  such  a  trial  asked  this 
uestion,  and  did  you  not  make  this  answer,  and  it  has  got  to  be  on 
le  same  question  that  is  put  on  this  hearing,  and  not  on  some  other 
earing. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  what  I  am  getting  at  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  have  not  put  any  question  as  to  whether  he 
ould  or  would  not  have  voted - 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  not  the  question.  Just  listen  to  the  ques- 
on,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  your  statement - 

Judge  Hanecy.  Just  listen,  Mr.  Austrian,  until  I  read. 

(Reading:) 

Q.  What  conversation  occurred  up  there? — A.  He  asked  me,  “  What  are  you 
•oubling  me  about?”  and  I  told  him  I  wanted  to  know  what  I  was  going  to 
it  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  What  did  you  want  to  know  that  for?— A.  I  inferred  from  his  remarks 
tere  was  to  be  money  in  it. 

Q.  And  you  wanted  to  know  just  exactly  what  you  were  going  to  receive? _ 

.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  want  to  know  that  for? — A.  I  wanted  to  know  before  I 
>ted  to  have  an  understanding. 

Q.  So  if  there  wasn’t  enough,  you  would  not  do  it?— A.  I  did  not  question 
ie  amount  at  all. 

Q.  You  were  willing  to  vote  for  any  amount,  were  you?— A.  I  did  not  ques- 
3n  the  amount  at  all. 

Q.  Were  you  willing  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  any  amount  of  money? _ 

I  judge  that  I  might  have  voted  for  him  for  $5  or  $10.  That  was  not  the 
lestion  that  was  raised  at  that  time. 

Q.  Rut  you  wanted  to  know  how  much  money  you  were  going  to  get9 _ 

Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  your  conscience  hurting  you  then? — A.  My  conscience  was  not 
oubling  me  exactly.  I  wanted  to  find  out. 

Q.  And  you  asked  him  how  much  you  were  going  to  get?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  to  that? — A.  He  asked  me  if  I  could  or  could  not  trust 
at  to  him. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  that?— A.  I  told  him  that  I  would  like  to  know.  I 
Id  him  I  could,  but  I  would  like  to  know. 

Q.  And  what  did  he  tell  you;  what  did  he  say? — A.  He  said;  “You  are 
Ing  to  get  $1,000 ;  it  is  going  to  be  ready  cash.” 

Were  those  questions  asked  you  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  It  is  not  contradictory  to  any  state- 
ents  he  has  made  here. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  get  back  here  to  the  question.  Was  this 
lestion  asked  you - 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  it  is  impeachment,  it  is  not  contradictory,  and 
iless  it  is  contradictory  it  is  not  competent.  You  can  not  read 
lestions  and  answers. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  White,  was  this  question  asked  you: 

Was  you  willing  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  any  money? 

id  did  you  answer  as  follows: 

I  think  I  might  have  voted  for  him  for  $5  or  $10.  That  was  not  the  ques- 
>n  that  was  raised  at  that  time. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - IQ 


146  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Wasn’t  that  question  asked  you,  and  did  you  not  make  that 
answer? — A.  As  I  remember  that  question  being  asked,  I  answered 
it  emphasizing  the  fact  that  no  question  as  to  the  amount  offered  was 
discussed. 

Q.  That  is  not  my  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  can  answer  that,  yes  or  no. — A.  les;  have 

the  testimony  here.  ^  ^  ... 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  In  the  second  trial  of  People  v.  Browne,  m  the 

criminal  court  of  Cook  County,  was  this  question  asked  you  5  among 
other  things,  did  you  say  here— well,  there  is  a  long  statement  here 

c  T-»  *  TV  j i-!  n  r*  t  A  O  TT  f\  w\  T'T  O  T  QC 


L1CJL  uju.  7  #  i  •  n 

Senator  Burrows.  Put  your  question  as  accurate  and  bnet  as  you 

can.  Judge.  .  ,  .  .  ,  T  ,  , 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  what  I  am  going  to  do. 

Did  Browne  say,  “White,  can’t  you  vote  for  a  Republican,  and 
did  you  say,  “  Yes;  I  can  vote  for  anything?  A.  T  es;  I  think  that 

is  the  testimony.  .  T  •  wi  + 

Senator  Burrows.  You  can  not  be  heard. — A.  1  es,  sii ;  1  think  that 

is  the  testimony.  _  x  .  .  ,  T  ^,XT 

Judge  Hanecy.  Your  testimony  at  the  second  trial  of  Lee  O  JNeU 

Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir.  #  .  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Does  the  committee  understand  that  is  what  you 

testified  to,  Mr.  White? — A.  'les,  sir.  ,  .  « 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  know  George  Gloss,  don  t  you,  Mr.  W  nite?— 

A.  Yes  sir. 

*0.  What  is  his  business?— A.  The  last  time  I  saw  him  he  was  8 
motorman — the  last  time  I  knew  of  his  business  he  was  a  motormar 

on  a  street  car  here.  .  ,  .  . 

Q.  Here  in  Chicago?— A.  Yes,  sir;  here  in  Chicago.  # 

Q.  A  motorman  on  a  street  car  in  Chicago .  A.  1  es,  sir.  . 

Q.  And  that  is  the  traction  company  that  runs  the  north  side  anc 

the  west  side  cars? — A.  Yes,  sir.  ,  - 

Q.  Did  you  meet  George  Gloss,  the  motorman,  the  Sunday  befor- 

Senator  Lorimer’s  election? — A.  Well,  I  don't  recall  nov.  It  nugi 
have  been  some  time  before  that.  I  don’t  remember  the  exact  dates. 
Q.  Well,  did  vou  meet  him? — A.  I  won  t  fix  any  date,  Mr.  Hanec} 

because  I  don’t  remember  the  dates.  .  . 

Q.  Did  you  meet  him  about  Sunday,  on  Sunday  before  the  electioi 

of  Senator  Lorimer  to  the  United  States  Senate,  here  m  (  hicago . 
A.  I  won’t  fix  the  date.  I  don’t  know  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  Your  answer  is  that  you  don  t  remember .  A 

sir* 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  meet  Mr.  Gloss  here  in  Chicago  about  tha 
time ?— A.  I  can  not  say  that ;  I  do  not  remember  now  # 

6.  Do  you  remember  meeting  Mr.  Gloss  here  and  walking  down  tli 
street  with  him  and  discussing  the  candidacy  or  the  probability  0 
electing  or  the  possibility  of  electing  William  Lorimer  United  State 
Senator?— A.  No.  sir:  I  never  discussed  that  with  him. 

Q.  On  the  first  trial  was  this  question  asked  you  and  did  yo 

answer  as  I  will  read : 


Q.  Did  you  meet  bim  on  Sunday  before  the  election  of  W  illiam  Lorimer  1 
the  United  States  Senate  here  in  Chicago?— A.  Yes,  sir. 


Senator  Gamble.  Meaning  him.  Gloss.? 
Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  147 


Q.  Mr.  White,  was  this  question  asked  you - A.  I  don’t  remem- 

*r.  I  suppose  that  was  asked  me.  There  were  so  many  questions 
ked  me  that  I  do  not  now  recall  them  all. 

Q.  Did  you  walk  with  him  on  State  street  down  to  about  Van  Buren  street? — 
Yes,  sir ;  I  started  with  him  from  the  Briggs  House. 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  Mr.  Witness,  did  you  so  testify? — A.  I  do 
)t  remember  what  the  questions  were  along  that  line. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  start  with  him? — A.  There  were  some 
lestiqns  asked  me  relative  to  Gloss.  I  presume  that  was  asked  me 
’ten  in  the  testimony  there. 

Q.  Did  you  walk  from  that  place? — A.  I  have  walked  from  the 
riggs  House  down  to  State  street. 

Q.  To  State  and  Van  Buren? — A.  Yes;  but  I  would  not  be  posi- 
ve  as  to  the  date  there. 

Q,.  At  that  time  and  that  walk,  when  you  got  down  to  State  and 
an  Buren  streets,  did  Gloss  say  to  you,  in  substance,  “  White,  it 
ould  seem  that  you  will  soon  elect  a  man  down  there.  Who  do  you 
ink^  it  will  be  ?  ”  And  did  you  say,  “  I  don’t  know  ?  A.  Well, 
don’t  think  that  conversation  took  place;  I  don't  remember  now. 

Q.  Will  you  say  it  did  not? — A.  As — is  that  all  of  the  conversa- 
i  m  relative  to  that  question  ? 

Q.  That  is  the  question  and  answer. — A.  I  don’t  think  that  con- 
rsation  took  place. 

Q.  You  think  it  did  not?— A.  I  don’t  remember  now. 

Q.  Was  this  question  asked  you  ?  Did  Gloss  say  to  you,  “  White, 
seems  that  you  would  soon  elect  a  man  down  there.  Who  do  you 
link  it  will  be”?  and  didn’t  you  say,  “I  don’t  know?”— well,  that 
the  same  thing.  Did  you  not  answer,  then,  “Yes?  ” — A.  What 
that  question  ?  What  is  it  you  are  talking  about  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  are  two  men  putting  questions  to  the  wit- 
iss,  and  I  can’t  distinguish  whether  Mr.  O’Donnell  is  putting  the 
estions  to  the  witness  or  Judge  Hanecy. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  are  listening  to  me,  and  not  to  him.  I  am 
mg  the  talking  for  the  record. 

Senator  Burrows.  State  the  question,  please. 

Judge  Hanecy  (reading).  Did  Gloss  say  to  you:  “  White,  it  seems 
tat  you  would  soon  elect  a  man  down  there.  Who  do  you  think  it 
J1  be?.  And  did  you  say:  “I  don’t  know.”  And  did  you  sav: 
tes,  sir;”  that  you  did  have  that  conversation ?— A.  I  don’t  re- 
imber  exactly  the  testimony  verbatim  there.  I  might  have  an- 
ered  it  that  way.  The  record  will  show. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Gloss:  “What  do  you  think  about  this  man 

Ijnmer?  ’  And  did  you  say - A.  What  is  that? 

Q;  Did  you  say  to  Gloss:  “What  do  you  think  about  this  man 
1  Timer?  ’—A.  This  was  prior  to  Lorimer’s  election,  you  mean? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  discussed  that  matter  with  him. 

Jr.  Austrian.  Never  discussed  it. 

The  Witness.  I  never  discussed  that  matter  with  Mr.  Gloss  prior 
his  election. 

^ Judge  Hanecy.  Did  Gloss  say  to  you,  in  answer  to  that  question: 

do  not  know  him  personally,  but  the  boys  told  me  that  he  is  a 
-  at  friend  of  the  street-car  men,  and  has  done  them  many  favors.” 
did  you  say,  “  So  I  have  heard  ?  ” — A.  Is  that  the  conversation? 


148  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Yes— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  didn’t  take  place?— A.  No,  sir.  #  . 

Q.  Did  yon  meet  George  Gloss  at  the  Briggs  House  in  July 
1909?— A.  I  do  not  recall.  I  might  have  met  him  there  at  that  time 
Q.  Did  you  ever  meet  him  after  Lorimer’s  election  ? — A.  I  think  1 

have  ;  why - 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  with  him  at  the  Briggs  House  aftei 
Senator  Lorimer  was  elected? — A.  I  couldn’t  be  positive  about  tha 
now.  I  don’t  remember.  I  might  have  done  that. 

Q.  Did  he  say  to  you,  in  that  conversation  at  the  Briggs  House 
“  White,  I  see  you  voted  for  Lorimer?  And  did  you  say,  \es?  — 
A.  That  might  have  taken  place. 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  it  take  place? 

The  Witness.  I  don’t  remember,  Mr.  Chairman.  The  conyersa 
tion  is  not  asked  me  here  as  it  was  on  the  previous  tiial  ,  1  think  l 
is  divided  up  more.  I  think  he  is  dividing  the  conversation  here. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  Gloss  say  to  you,  then:  “  How  did  it  hap 
pen?  ”  And  did  you  say  to  him:  “  I  am  low  down  on  the  nst,  an< 
when  they  came  to  my  name  I  was  excited  as  to  what  to  do,  and 
just  hollered  out  ‘Lorimer  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  didn’t  say  that  to  Gloss?— A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  said  he  did  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  he  then  ask  you  how  your  real  estate  busines 
was ;  and  did  you  say :  “  Not  very  well  ?  ”— A.  Is  that  the  entire  ques 

tion  that  was  asked  me  at  the  other  trial  ?  , 

Q  That  is  the  whole  question  and  the  answer. — A.  1  don  t  remen: 
her  now  about  that,  whether  he  did  or  not.  He  might  have  asked  m 


about  that. 

Q.  Well,  will  you  answer  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  says  he  doesn’t  remember. 

Senator  Burrows.  Tlie  witness  says  he  does  not  remember;  an 
then  he  said  it  might  have  occurred,  and  it  might  not.  Now,  he  dot 

not  remember,  and  that  is  the  end  of  it.  „. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  sav  to  Gloss  on  that  occasion,  or  did  Wos 
sav  to  you  on  that  occasion :  “  What  are  you  going  to  do  ?  An 
did  you  answer:  “  I  am  trying  to  get  a  federal  job;  I  am  up  here  l 
see  Lorimer  now  before  he  is  going  away  to  Europe  to-morrow  (  - 


A.  No.  sir.  T  . 

Q.  You  did  not  say  that  ?— A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows  The  committee  understands  you  to  say  that  y< 

did  not  say  it?— A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  say  it. 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  Were  you  in  Chicago  the  day  before  Senator  Loi 
mer  left  for  Europe?— A.  I  don’t  know  when  he  left  for  Europ 


Mr.  Hanecy.  .  ,  i  .  ,  .  , 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Gloss,  “  I  am  going  to  try  to  get  a  job  a. 

reporter  on  a  ocean  vessel  at  $3,500  a  yeai,  oi  tiy  to  get  a  jo  as 

secret-serviceman?” — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  tell  him  that?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q  Did  you  see  Gloss  here  in  Chicago  and  take  a  round  trip  on  li 
street  car  and  when  you  got  to  Fifth  avenue  and  Lake  street  did  tii 
conversation  take  place — did  you  take  a  round  trip  around  tie 
from  Fortieth  avenue  and  back  again  to  Lake  street  and  \\  ashmgto 
and  on  that  trip  did  Gloss  say  to  you,  “  Charlie,  how  about  your  job 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  149 

nd  did  you  say,  “I  did  not  get  those  jobs  I  was  talking  about,  but 
hey  offered  me  a  job  in  the  county  building  at  $75  per  month,  and  I 
urned  it  down.'’ — A.  I  had  no  conversation  with  Gloss  relative  to 

bat. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  answer  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  said  he  had  no  conversation. — A.  I  had  no  con- 
ersation  with  Gloss  relative  to  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  next  question,  Judge? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Speak  louder,  Mr.  White,  so  the  chairman  can  hear 

ou. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  Mr.  Gloss  say  to  you,  then,  “  Why  did  you  do 
hat;7’  and  did  you  answer,  “Well,  they  didn’t  do  the  right  thing  by 
le  and  I  am  going  to  get  even  with  them.” — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  was  the  answer? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  is  all.  If  I  may  be 
emitted,  if  I  find  that  there  are  any  questions  which  I  have  omitted 
hen  I  look  over  my  memoranda,  I  would  like  to  be  permitted  to 
sk  them. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  closes  the  cross-examination. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  is  now  nearly  5  o’clock,  and  the  committee  will 
djourn  now  until  10  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

(Whereupon  an  adjournment  was  taken  until  the  next  day,  Wednes- 
ay,  September  28, 1910,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.) 

WEDNESDAY,  SEPTEMBER  28,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

At  10  o’clock  a.  m.  the  subcommittee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment, 
ad  the  following  proceedings  were  had : 

The  following  members  of  the  subcommittee  being  present :  Hon. 
ulius  C.  Burrows,  chairman,  Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble,  Hon.  W.  B. 
feyburn,  Hon.  Joseph  F.  Johnston,  Hon.  Thomas  H.  Paynter,  Hon. 
ames  B.  Frazier,  Hon.  Morgan  G.  Bulkeley. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  proceed,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  not  the  letter  that  you  referred  to  yesterday, 
udge.  Y  ou  may  read  the  copy. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Very  well.  There  are  a  few  questions,  Mr.  Chair- 
ian  and  gentlemen,  that  I  omitted  to  ask  yesterday,  in  my  hurry,  of 
le  witness  now  on  the  stand,  and  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  do  so,  I 
ill  go  on  with  them  now. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  do  so.  The  Chair  desires  to  state  to 
>unsel  present  that  it  has  come  to  our  notice  that  some  of  the  ex- 
ibits  have  sometimes  been  handed  by  counsel  to  persons  who  were 
)t  the  official  stenographers.  We  would  like  to  have  all  of  the  ex- 
ibits  handed  to  the  official  stenographer  alone.  Some  of  the  exhibits 
ive  gotten  into  the  hands  of  other  people  than  the  official  reporters, 
id  the  official  reporters  have  had  some  difficulty  in  getting  them; 

>  that  you  will  have  the  exhibits  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  official 
porters  alone. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  have  all  of  ours,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Of  course  they  will  be  returned  promptly. 


150  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Charles  A.  White,  a  witness  heretofore  called  herein,  resumed  the 
stand  for  further  cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy,  and  testified 
as  follows: 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  White,  in  your  letter  of  the  4th  of  Septem¬ 
ber,  1909,  to  Senator  Lorimer  you  say:  “  I  have  not  closed  a  deal 
with  any  publishing  house,  but  when  my  terms  are  acceptable  wiL 
dispose  of  it.”  What  were  your  terms? — A.  I  had  no  terms. 

Q.  You  had  no  terms  at  all?— A.  No,  sir:  that  letter  was  merely 
written  to  Senator  Lorimer  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  a  reply. 

Q.  That  is,  you  wanted  to  get  some  letter  from  Senator  Lonmei 
to  you  in  relation  to  that  subject  ? — A.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  date  of  that  letter? 

Judge  Hanecy.  December  12,  1909.  That  is  the  letter  m  whicl 

he  said  he  was  to  get  $75,000. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  date  is  all  I  wanted. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  said  you  had  not  any  terms  at  all .  A.  No 
sir ;  I  stated  I  wrote  that  letter  to  Senator  Lorimer  in  order  to  receive 

a  reply.  „  .  ,, 

Q.  What  did  you  want  a  reply  from  Senator  Lorimer  tor  in  tha 

matter  ? — A.  I  wanted  him  to  commit  himself  some  way  or  other  ai 

to  his - -  , 

Q.  For  what  purpose?— A.  For  the  purpose  of  using  it  in  thu 

testimony,  or  in  this  manuscript,  rather. 

Q.  That  is,  so  that  you  could  use  it  ? — A.  Y  es,  sir. 

Q.  In  connection  with  your  story?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  publication  or  any  purposes  which  you  could,  or  any  pur 
poses  by  which  you  could  realize  on  it,  is  that  right  ?  A.  I  oi  th< 

purpose  of  exposure.  .  .  Ti 

Q.  You  had  that  all  planned  out  at  that  time,  did  you.  A.  I  ha( 
it  all  planned  out  to  publish  his  letter,  and  use  the  letter  in  th 
manuscript  in  which  he  wrote  to  me  in  reply  to  that  letter. 

Q.  You  had  it  planned  in  advance,  before  the  letter  to  Senate 
Lorimer  referred  to,  that  you  were  to  get  from  him,  if  possible, 
reply  to  your  letter  to  him  that  you  might  publish  it  in  connection 
with  your  manuscript ;  to  commit  him  to  something  that  would  be  o 
value  to  you  or  your  story  ?— A.  No;  no  more  value  than  in  some  wa; 
to  try  to  bring  out  Senator  Lorimer’s  knowledge  of  the  affairs  tha 
existed  there.  I  had  no  dealings  with  Senator  Lorimer,  and  I  wa 

anxious  to  know  his  position  in  the  matter.  . 

Your  purpose  at  the  time  you  wrote  that  letter  to  Senator  Lou 

mer  was  to  sell  your  story  ? — A.  Not  to  sell  it ;  no. 

Q.  To  give - A.  To  have  it  published  for  exposure. 

Q*  Well,  did  you  intend  to  give  it  away?— A.  I  intended  to  hav 
it  published,  with  the  understanding  that  I  had  with  the  Tribunt 
and  when  I  am  permitted  to  make  a  supplemental  statement  1  wi 

explain  that  contract.  , . , 

Q.  At  the  time  you  wrote  that  letter  to  Senator  Lorimer  did  yo 

have  an  understanding  with  the  Chicago  Tribune?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  just  said  you  wrote  it  with  a  view  or  with  an  undei 
standing  that  you  had  with  the  Tribune?— A.  No;  I  didnt  stat 
that.  I  stated  I  wrote  the  letter  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  repi 
to  be  used  with  the  exposure,  and  the  parties  that  were  to  expos 
this  matter  were  to  use  that  letter  in  connection  with  it.  1  haven 
the  contract  that  the  Tribune  has.  It  does  not  speak  the  truth  in  li 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  151 

*ntirety.  I  have  not  testified  to  that  at  any  stage  of  the  trial.  I 
vas  asked  if  I  signed  that  contract. 

Q.  Then  that  contract  does  not  speak  the  truth? — A.  Not  entirely; 
10,  sir.  There  are  some  sentences  in  it  that  are  not  absolutely  cor- 

*ect. 

Q.  What  are  they? — A.  Well,  it  states  there  that  I  offered  to  sell, 
n  the  first  place. 

Q.  Well,  you  read  that  before  you  signed  it,  didn’t  you? — A.  I 
’ead  it  after  having  quite  a  discussion  over  it. 

Q.  Did  you  protest  at  that  time  that  that  was  not  true? — A. 
ires,  sir. 

Q.  And  what  was  said  to  you  ? — A.  Well,  I  told  them  that  part  of 
he  contract  where  it  had  in  there  that  I  offered  to  sell  was  not  cor- 
•ect,  because  I  had  told  them  that  all  I  expected  was  my  expenses 
vliile  this  matter  was  being  corroborated  or  proven  true. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  tell  that  ? — A.  I  told  it  to  the  Tribune  people. 

Q.  Yes ;  but  I  want  the  names  of  them. — A.  Mr.  Keely. 

Q.  The  managing  editor,  Mr.  James  Keeley  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  other  party? — A.  Well,  Mr.  Keeley  was  the  man  I  was 
alking  with. 

Q.  Who  else  was  present  at  the  time  you  were  doing  the  talking? — 
V.  Mr.  Austrian  and  Mr.  Maguire. 

Q.  Mr.  Alfred  Austrian,  counsel  here,  representing  the  Chicago 
Tribune? — A.  Mr.  Austrian,  over  here  [pointing]. 

Q.  That  is  the  same  man  ? — A.  And  Mr.  Maguire. 

Q.  Mr.  Maguire  is  the  head  of  the  detective  agency  here  that  was 
imployed  by  the  Tribune  at  that  time? — A.  Well,  he  was  connected 
vith  a  detective  agency,  but  I  didn’t  know  his  exact  connections  at 
hat  time. 

Q.  He  is  Mr.  Maguire — Thomas  Maguire,  of  the  firm  of  Maguire 
z  White,  detective  agency — that  is  the  man? — A.  So  I  understand. 

Q.  And  he  was  at  the  Chicago  Tribune  office  with  Mr.  James 
Neeley,  the  managing  editor,  Mr.  Alfred  Austrian,  the  attorney  for 
he  Chicago  Tribune,  and  you  at  that  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  else  there? — A.  That  is  all  that  there  was 
n  the  room. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  else  there  at  any  other  time  when  you 
alked  with  them  about  this  matter? — A.  I  don’t  remember  anyone 
;lse  at  this  time. 

Q.  Did  you  put  a  price  on  your  value,  in  dollars  and  cents,  upon 
mur  expenses — you  say  you  told  them  you  only  wanted  your  ex¬ 
penses.  Did  you  say  how  much  they  would  be? — A.  Oh,  I  told  them 
ny  expenses;  it  might  cost  me  about  $3,500.  I  didn’t  know;  but  I 
night  need  counsel,  I  didn’t  know;  but  I  wanted  some  assurance 
hat  I  would  have  some  one  to  bear  my  expenses  while  this  matter 
vas  being  corroborated  or  proven  true. 

Q.  What  did  you  think  you  needed  counsel  for? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  It  is  immaterial,  and  it  is  a  side  issue  in 
his  case  as  to  why  he  needed  counsel. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  said  he  might  need  counsel,  and  that  is  why 
ie  put  that  price  upon  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  witness  answer  the  question. 

A.  I  did  not  know  what  might  arise;  I  do  not  know  yet. 


152  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  Is  that  why  you  are  in  the  custody  of  an  officer? 
Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  It  was  gone  over  yesterday  as  to  why 
he  was  in  the  custody  of  an  officer. 

Judge  Hancey.  I  simply  asked  him  yesterday  if  he  was  in  the 
custody  of  an  officer,  and  I  tried  to  find  out  why  he  was  in  the  cus¬ 
tody  of  an  officer  and  he  said  he  didn’t  know;  that  there  was  no 
indictment  charged  against  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  did  state  that  because  he  was  to  become  a  wit¬ 
ness  in  the  Wilson  case  and  in  the  Gloss  case.  They  are  pending  on 
the  North  Side. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  witness  answer  to  save  time. 

A.  The  question  now,  please. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  the  reporter  read  the  question? 

[Question  read.] 

A.  Well,  as  I  have  been  told,  and  as  I  stated  yesterday,  that  I  was 
to  be  a  witness  in  the  Gloss  case,  and  also  in  the  ilson  case. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  didn’t  ask  you  that.  Is  that  the  reason  why 
you  are  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  now? — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 
Q.  Not  to  your  knowledge? — A.  No. 

Q.  Who  fixed  the  price  first  that  the  Tribune  was  to  pay  you? 
Did  you  fix  it,  or  did  Mr.  Keeley  or  Mr.  Austrian  or  Mr.  Maguire?— 
A.  I  told  them  about  what  my  expenses  would  be,  what  I  thought  I 
did  not  know  what  they  would  be,  and  I  had  no  way  of  estimating. 
Q.  This  letter  recites  a  consideration  to  you  of  $3,250.  You  knew 

that,  didn’t  you? — A.  What  is  that? 

Q.  The  contract,  I  should  say.— A.  Do  you  mean  the  document  I 

signed  ? 

Q  Yes _ A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  This  is  an  agreement  that  the  Tribune  is  to  pay  you  $3,250  for 
your  story,  and  your  corroboration  of  the  story  whenever  they  called 
on  you  to  do  so? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  mentioned  as  money  to  bear  my 
expenses,  not  part  of  selling  the  story  at  all.  e 

Q.  Didn’t  the  Chicago  Tribune  pay  you  $250  in  addition  to  that 
as  expenses  ? — A.  Something  in  that  neighborhood ;  I  did  not  keep  an 
itemized  statement,  and  I  would  not  say  positively. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  testify  in  the  two  trials  of  the  case  of  Pepole  v. 
Browne  that  you  were  paid  $250  as  expenses  in  addition  to  the  $3,250 
mentioned  in  the  contract  ? — A.  I  stated  about  $250. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  specify  that  ?— A.  I  don’t  think  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  paid  anything  else  by  the  Chicago  Tribune  than  the 

$3,250  and  the  $250?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  was  paid  to  you  for  expenses 
wasn’t  it? — A.  If  it  was  that  much,  or  about  that.  That  was  paid 

to  be  as  expenses;  that  is -  . 

Q.  Has  the  Tribune  been  paying  your  expenses  m  your  different 
travels  throughout  the  United  States  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  l- 
A.  The  officer  has  been  paying  those  expenses. 

Q.  Has  the  Tribune  been  paying  it  to  the  officer?— A.  I  doni 

know  anything  about  that. 

Q.  You  don’t?— A.  Why,  no;  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  know. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  use  any  of  the  $250  in  addition,  the  sum  which 
you  got  from  the  Tribune  in  addition  to  the  $3,250,  for  expenses. 
A.  Do  you  mean  about  $250? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WH.LIAM  LORIMER.  153 

Q.  Well,  did  you  ever  use  any  of  that  for  your  expenses? — A. 
es,  sir. 

Q.  What? — A.  The  money  that  was  paid  me  prior  to  that  time, 

rior  to  the  time  I  received  the  $3,250,  was  used  as  expenses  in - 

Q.  (Interrupting.)  When  did  you  get  the  $250? — A.  Oh,  it  was 
lid  to  me  at  different  times. 

Q.  What  did  you  use  it  for,  what  expenses? — A.  I  used  it  in 

aveling  about  the  States - 

Q.  When? — A.  And  paying  incidental  expenses. 

Q.  When  ? — A.  In  March,  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  What  time  in  March  ? — A.  March  and  April. 

Q.  The  first  part  of  March  or  the  last? — A.  Why,  it  was  after  I 
id  gone  to  the  Tribune  office. 

Q.  The  calendar  is  what  I  want. — A.  I  could  not  state  that.  I 
ated  it  was  after  I  had  gone  to  the  Tribune  office. 

Q.  And  when  was  that? — A.  Well,  it  was  some  time  near  the  1st 
l  March.  I  don't  remember  the  exact  date. 

Q.  It  was  more  than  two  months  before  the  publication  of  a  part 
f  your  story,  wasn’t  it? — A.  Now,  I  would  not  be  positive  about 

mt. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  about  two  months  before? — A.  It  was  something 
3ar  two  months. 

Q.  Did  anybody  else  offer  you  any  price  for  your  story,  or  any  part 
r  it,  or  any  excerpts  or  any  extracts  from  it,  excepting  the  Chicago 
ribune? — A.  No  one  offered  to  take  it  up  and  publish  it. 

Q.  That  is  not  what  I  asked  you.  Did  anybody  ever  offer  you 
lything  in  dollars  and  cents,  or  other  thing  of  value,  for  your  story, 

’  any  part  of  it? — A.  You  have  asked  that  question  as  “was  I 
fered  for  the  story.”  The  story  was  not  in  that.  The  money 

as  paid  to  me  for  expenses,  to  defray  expenses - 

Q.  Answer  the  question,  please. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  him  finish  his  answer. 

Senator  Burrows.  Read  the  question  to  him,  please. 

(Question  read.) 

Judge  Hanecy  (continuing).  Except  the  Chicago  Tribune? — A. 
o,  sir;  with  the  exception — the  Chicago  Tribune  merely  offered  to 
ly  my  expenses,  and  this  money  was  expense  money  simply  offered 

>r  the  story,  excepting  the  Chicago  Tribune - 

Q.  Did  anybody,  excepting  the  Chicago  Tribune,  ever  offer  you 
ly  money,  or  other  thing  of  value,  for  your  story,  or  any  part  of 
? — A.  No;  not  prior  to  the  offer  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  in  the  way 
’  my  expenses. 

Q.  You  have  not  offered  your  story,  or  any  part  of  it,  to  anybody 
any  price  except  the  Chicago  Tribune? — A.  To  the  Doubleday- 
age  Publishing  Company,  but  told  them  I  should  expect  out  of  it 
y  expenses,  whatever  they  were. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  them  they  would  be  $3,500  or  some  other 
un? — A.  I  did  not  make  any  specific  stipulation  at  all. 

Q.  You  offered  your  storv — vour  so-called  story — to  three  different 
irties  that  vou  have  named  before  vou  offered  it  to  the  Chicago 
ribune;  is  that  right? — A.  I  talked — I  corresponded  with  three 
fferent  parties. 

Q.  With  a  view  to  having  them  publish  it  or  take  it? — A.  Pub- 

it. 


154  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Did  you  ever  offer  to  any  others  than  the  three  you  have  here 
stated?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  Chicago  Tribune?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  present  it  to  any  others  than  the  three  you  have 
mentioned  and  the  Chicago  Tribune?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  Chicago  Tribune?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  present  it  to  any  others— did  anybody  at  any 
time  ever  offer  you  $2.50  a  word  for  that  story?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  for  any  part  of  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  the  statement  in  your  letter  to  Senator  Lorimer  of  De¬ 
cember  4,  1909,  as  follows: 

I  have  been  offered  a  sum  sufficient  to  value  the  manuscript  at  $2.50  per  word. 
That  statement  in  that  letter  by  you  was  not  true,  was  it  ?— A. 

No,  sir;  it  was  not  true.  . 

O  Why  did  you  make  that  statement  m  that  letter  that  you  sent 

to  Senator  Lorimer?— A.  I  wanted  him  to  answer  the  letter  with 
some  reply — to  make  some  reply  to  the  letter. . 

Q  Did  you  want  him  to  make  some  financial  reply  to  it?— A.  1 
did  not  know  in  what  manner  he  might  answer  it.  That  is  the  best 

way  I  can  answer  it.  .  ,  ,  ,  QA<W 

O  You  stated  in  here  that  your  story  contained  about  30,001 

words.  Was  that  true?— A.  I  didn’t  know  how  many  words— 1 
don’t  know  how  many  words  it  contains,  Mi.  Hanecy. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  know  whether  the  statement  that  you  made  lr 
this* letter  to  Senator  Lorimer  was  the  truth  or  not? — A.  No,  sir: 

1  Q)  You  don’t  knowT  now  whether  it  was  the  truth?— A.  I  don 
know  now  how  many  words  it  contains.  I  never  counted  the  word: 

nor  made  anv  estimation  of  them.  .  .  , 

O  Why  did  you  state  in  your  letter  to  Senator  Lorimer  that  you 

story  contained  about  30,000  words  and  that  you  had  been  offered  fo 
your  manuscript  about  $2.50  per  word?— A.  I  wanted  to  receive  : 
replv  from  him  along  the  whole  subject-matter. 

O.  You  had  figured  that  30,000  words  at  $2.50  a  word  woul< 
amount  to  $T5,000,  hadn’t  you?— A  Well,  I  had— I  had  figured  thi 
way  •  The  amount  would  be  so  much.  If  he  would  m  any  wa>  con 
sider  any  such  proposition  that  he  would  write  some  sort  of  a  lette 
E  ” me  to  withhold  any  publication  until  he  could  have  furthe 
conference,  and  I  intended  to  use  the  letter,  whatever  it  was. 

O  If  he  had  made  some  such  proposition  to  you,  referring  to  tn 
amount  in  dollars  and  cents  suggested  in  your  letter,  then  what  woul 
have  happened  ?— A.  The  letter  would  have  been  m  this  manuscriF 
and  in  evidence  the  same  as  the  other  documents  I  have  here  Iroi 
Mr.  Browne,  also  which  T  received  from  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Keeley,  of  the  Chicago  Tribune  or  its  at  01 
ney,  Mr.  Austrian,  or  its  chief  detective,  Tom  Maguire,  that  you  ha 
written  this  letter  to  Senator. Lorimer ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

(I  x)id  you  give  them  a  copy  of  it? — A.  I  stated  the  substant 

of  it  S 

°  Q.  Now,  did  you  state  the  substance  of  it  as  it  is?— A.  Well,  tl 

subject-matter  practically.  , 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  the  witness  did  not  answer  that  ot!i( 

question.  Did  you  give  them  a  copy  of  it? — A.  I  didn  t  reserve 
copy. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  155 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  enough;  you  didn’t  give  them  a  copy, 
hen. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  letter  to  Senator  Lorimer  covers  very  nearly 
hree  pages  of  letter  head.  Did  you  recite  to  Mr.  Keeley,  or  Mr.  Aus- 
rian,  or  Tom  Maguire,  the  chief  detective  of  the  Tribune,  the  sub- 
lance  of  this  letter? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  times  did  you  talk  with  these  three  gentlemen  about 
he  sale  of  your  story  and  your  testimony  ?— A.  About  the  sale  of  it 
o  whom? 

Q.  To  them  or  anybody  else. — A.  We  never  talked  about  the  sale 
>f  the  story.  The  matter  we  talked  of  there  was  about  the  corrobora- 
ion  of  it,  and  they  agreed  to  pay  my  expenses. 

Q.  Who  drew  this  contract  that  you  signed  between  you  and  the 
Chicago  Tribune? — A.  I  don’t  know,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  Alfred  Austrian  did? — A.  No,  sir;  I  have 
lever  been  informed. 

Q.  Did  the  Chicago  Tribune  have  it  drawn  ? — A.  I  don’t  know  who 
tad  it  drawn. 

Q.  Did  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anybody  for  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anybody  by  your  procurement  in  any  way? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  By  whom  was  it  first  presented  to  you? — A.  Presented  bv  Mr. 

Neeley,  of  the - 

Q.  Of  the  Tribune? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  first  sentence  of  this  contract  is,  after  the  address  to 
harles  A.  White,  “  You  offer  to  sell  to  us  for  publication  a  story  writ- 
en  by  you,  which  story  gives  your  experience  while  a  member  of  the 
ouse  of  representatives  of  Illinois  during  1909  and  1910,  and  giving 
Iso  certain  information  as  to  what  transpired  by  reason  of  your 
oting  for  certain  measures,  etc.,  while  a  member  of  such  house.” 
hat  is  the  very  first  sentence  in  the  letter,  and  you  read  it  carefully 
nd  discussed  it  carefully  and  its  importance  and  purport  with  the 
lanaging  editor  of  the  Tribune,  the  Tribune’s  attorney,  and  the 
Tibune’s  chief  detective,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  that  full  discussion  with  all  of  those  parties  you  signed 
bat  contract  with  that  language  in  it?— A.  I  signed  it,  but  impressed 
pon  them  the  fact  that  it  did  not  speak - 

Q.  That  is  not  what  I  asked  you.  You  did  sign  it  after  all  of 
hat  discussion  with  these  three  gentlemen  and  your  first  protest 
bout  it ;  yet  you  signed  it,  then  ? — A.  I  did  sign  it,  yes. 

Q.  Knowing  that  it  was  in  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  the  story  was  first  presented  to  you,  or  presented  by  you 
>  Mr.  Keeley,  what  did  Mr.  Keeley  say  to  you? — A.  When  the  story 
uis  first  presented? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Why,  I  don’t  recall  just  exactly  what  the  first  con- 
ersation  was. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you,  in  substance,  that  he  could  not  use  it  or  would 
ot  use  it? — A.  I  left  it  with  him  there  for  several  days  before  I  had 
be  talk  with  him. 

Q.  At  any  time;  if  you  took  it  in  there  and  left  it  and  walked  out, 
nd  then  went  back  again,  that  is  the  time  I  want;  the  first  con- 
ersation  you  had  with  him  after  he  knew  what  it  was. — A.  I  could 
ot  quote  the  first  conversation  verbatim,  but  he  asked  me  if  there 


156  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

were  any  of  the  members  who  would  corroborate  my  story,  and  I 
told  him  I  had  no  one’s  corroboration  except  my  own  story. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  cooperation  or  corroboration  ? — A.  Corroboration. 

Q.  Cooperation? — A.  No,  sir;  corroboration. 

Q.  Corroboration? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  that  there  were  other  members  who  would 
corroborate  your  story?— A.  I  told  him  I  didn’t  know  whether  they 
would  or  not;  that  I  had  given  my  story,  and  that  is  all  I  knew. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  any  different  members  by  name  or  location 
or  senatorial  district  or  county  or  otherwise  who  would,  or  might, 
corroborate  your  story? — A.  I  discussed  that  in  the  manusoiipt. 

Q.  Did  you  with  Mr.  Keeley?— A.  That  was  gone  over,  and  I 
suppose  the  manuscript - 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Keeley  and  his  attorney  and  detective  that 
there  were  any  members  of  the  general  assembly  of  Illinois,  either 
by  name  or  by  other  designation,  but  you  didn’t  believe  they  would 
corroborate  your  story  or  any  of  it? — A.  No,  sir;  I  didn’t  make 
that  statement. 

Q.  No? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  No.  At  the  time  that  you  talked— well,  so  that  during  all  of 
the  time  that  you  were  negotiating  with  the  Chicago  Tribune  and  its 
attorney  and  detective  about  the  sale  of  this  story  and  your  testi¬ 
mony? — A.  That  was  true. 

Q.  Yes?  Was  it  true  that  you  didn’t  know  anybody  who  would 
corroborate  your  story?— A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  true. 

Q.  And  you  were  negotiating  with  the  Chicago  Tribune  and  its 
attorney  and  detective  for  about  two  months  before  they  published 
your  story — a  part  of  your  story?— A.  There  was  no  negotiation. 
I  was  helping  to  investigate  it,  and  having  my  expenses  paid. 

Q.  Were  all  of  the  relations  with  them  for  about  two  months - 

A.  As  far  as  I  was  helping  to  investigate. 

Q.  Well,  you  and  the  Tribune  and  its  attorney  and  detective  trav¬ 
eled  all  over  the  State  in  different  directions— the  managing  editor 
of  the  Tribune,  I  mean?— A.  No,  sir;  the  managing  editor  never 
traveled  with  me  any.  I  don’t  know  where  he  went  m  my  absence. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  sufficient. 

Judge  TIanecy.  They  were  investigating — the  Tribune,  its  attor¬ 
ney,  and  detective  were  investigating  your  story  for  nearly  two 
months,  not  quite  two  months,  before  they  published  it,  werent 
they? — A.  I  understand  they  were  investigating  it. 

Q..  When  they  wanted  you  they  sent  for  you  and  you  went  to 
them,  didn’t  you,  and  gave  them  such  information  as  they  desired?— 
A.  I  informed  them  as  they  called  upon  me. 

Q.  This  story  as  printed,  or  the  story  as  printed  in  the  Chieagf 
Tribune,  is  what  part  of  the  entire  story  that  you  wrote?— A.  Well 
I  don’t  ’know  that  that  is  a  verbatim  copy  of  the  manuscript.  1 
would  not  be  positive  about  that. 

Q.  But  it  is  not  the  entire  story,  is  it?— A.  No,  sir;  not  by  an} 

means.  .  ,  . 

Q.  And  you  never  investigated  it  or  compared  it  or  examined  it 

to  ascertain  whether  it  was  a  verbatim  copy  or  a  part  of  the  story  m 
you  wrote  it,  or  whether  it  contained  extracts,  accurate  extracts  01 
excerpts  from  your  story,  did  you? — A.  T  didn’t  examine  it  carefully 
but  it  was  substantially  a  part  of  it. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  157 

Q.  Now,  what  proportion,  what  aliquot  part  of  the  whole  story 
is  you  wrote  it  was  published  in  the  Tribune? — A.  Well,  they  took 
he  charges  out  of  there. 

Q.  No,  what  part — a  third,  a  quarter,  a  half,  or  what  other  part? — 
Oh,  I  should  judge  it  was  less  than  a  quarter. 

Q.  Less  than  a  quarter  of  the  stor}^  as  3tou  wrote  it  was  published 
n  the  Chicago  Tribune? — A.  Well,  the  manuscript  contained  208 
iages,  and  I  don't  know  how  many  pages  run  over  these  charges ;  1 
*ou Id  not  state  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Never  mind,  you  can’t  appeal  to  them  for  infor- 
nation;  you  need  not  look  to  them. 

The  Witness.  I  haven’t  made  any  appeal  to  them  for  information. 
[  have  made  no  appeal,  Mr.  Hanecy,  if  you  will  pardon  me. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed. 

Judge  Hanecy.  About  a  quarter  of  what  you  wrote  was  published 
n  the  Chicago  Tribune?— A.  It  might  have  been  less  than  that;  I 
iresume  it  was;  it  might  have  been  one-fifth  or  one-sixth. 

Q.  It  was  about  one-fifth  or  one-sixth? — A.  I  could  not  state  just 
xactly ;  I  don’t  know  how  many  pages  they  published. 

Q.  But  the  Chicago  Tribune,  its  attorney  and  detective  had  your 
tory  when  they  extracted  from  it  such  parts  as  they  wanted  to 
•ublish. — A.  They  had  the  entire  manuscript. 

Q.  You  never  knew  prior  to  the  publication  of  the  story — part  of 
he  story  by  the  Chicago  Tribune — of  any  man  a  member  of  the 
eneral  assenibly  of  Illinois  who  would  corroborate  your  story  or 
ny  part  of  it? — A.  I  did  not  know  that  anyone  would  "corroborate  it 
y  confessing,  but  I  knew  there  Tvere  others  guilty  from  what  they 
ad  told  me. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  ask  that 
is  comment  that  he  knew  from  wdiat  they  told  him  be  stricken  out. 
Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit  that  it  *is  perfectly  competent. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  not  through. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  pardon  me. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  part  of  his  answer  was  uncalled  for  by  my 
uestion,  was  not  responsive  to  it,  and  projected  into  this  record 
imething  that  this  honorable  committee  has  excluded  after  very  full 
eliberation  from  the  record. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  question  is,  “I)o  you  know  of  anvone  who* 
ou Id  corroborate,”  and  the  witness  answers,  “I  didn’t  know  that 
iere  was  anyone  who  would  confess.”  He  answered  that  he  knew 
lat  if  they  told  the  truth  or  confessed  that  they  would  corroborate  it. 
Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  latter  part  of  that  answer  be  stricken 
at. 

Judge  Hanecy.  During  the  time  when  you  were  engaged  or  con¬ 
ning  with  the  Chicago  Tribune  and  its  attorney  and  detective 
lout  your  story,  were  you  sent  to  the  state’s  attorney’of  Cook  County 
F -the  Chicago  Tribune,  its  attorney,  or  detective? 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  question ;  I  didn’t  hear  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Bepeat  the  question. 

(Question  read  by  reporter.) 

Senator  Burrows.  You  understand  the  question? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Senator  Burrows.  Then  will  you  answer  it? — A.  I  was  told  bv  the 

irties - 


158  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHAEGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOEIMEE. 


judcre  Hanecy.  Won’t  you  be  kind  enough  to  inform  this  honorable 
committee  the  name  of  the  party  or  parties?— A.  I  was  told  by  Mr. 
Keeley  it  was  a  case  for  the  State’s  attorney,  and  I  had  better  consult 

the  State’s  attorney  relative  to  the  matter. 

Q.  When  did  he  first  tell  you  that  with  reference  to  the  time  that 
vou  first  went  to  him  which  would  be  about  the  1st  of  March?  A.  I 

don’t  remember  exactly.  .  , 

Q.  As  near  as  you  can  tell;  I  don’t  want  to  pm  you  down  exactly, 

but  we  want  vour  best  recollection? — A.  I  don’t  remember  it  it  was 
at  my  first  visit — the  first  or  second  visit. 

Q.'  The  first  or  second  visit?— A.  Or  may  be  the  third  visit. 

Q.  In  the  early  part  of  March? — A.  I  said  I  didn  t  remember  ex¬ 
actly  when.  ,  ,  ,  ,, 

Q.  Now,  when  did  you  go  or  did  you  go  to  the  State  s  attorney  s 

office  2 — A.’  I  don’t  remember  the  exact  date. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  go?— A.  Yes;  that  is  the  question. 

Q.  When  did  you  go  there? — A.  I  don’t  remember  exactly  when. 
Q.  About  when  did  you  go? — A.  About  some  time  in  Maich,  I 

should  judge,  .  ,, 

Q  How  long  was  it  after  Mr.  Keeley  told  you  that  you  should  go 

there,  or  suggested  that  you  go?— A.  I  went  over  the  next  day  or 

possibly  immediately  after  I  left  him.  . 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Keeley  make  the  appointment  for  you?— A.  Aot  that 

y  |  ^ 

Q.  Did  any  body  else  make  the  appointment  for  you?— A.  I  was 
told* to  go  over  and’  see  Mr.  Wayman  as  I  remember  it  now.  , 

Q.  Who  told  you  that?— A.  I  was  told  it  was  a  case  for  the  States 

attorney,  and  I  had  better  go  and  see  Mr.  Wayman. 

Q.  Who  told  you  that? — A.  Mr.  Keeley. 

Q.  Anybody  else? — A.  I  think  Mr.  McGuire  told  me  that  after- 
WQd&How  about  Mr.  Austrian?— A.  I  didn’t  discuss  that  with  Mr. 

AlQh Was  he  present  when  that  discussion  took  place?— A.  I  don't 

think  he  was.  _J  J  ,  ,,  ,  «  * 

Q.  Did  anybody  go  with  you  to  the  State  s  attorney  s  office .  A. 

No  sir. 

0.  Did  vou  go  alone? — A.  Yes,  sir.  , 

Q.  Did  you  meet  the  State’s  attorney  of  this  county  before  you  went 


to  his  office? — A.  No,  sir. 


g° 


ms  oiiice  .  a.v.  oii. .  i:  i 

Q.  Did  the  Tribune  people  give  you  back  your  story  when  you  did 

to  the  State’s  attorney’s  ofiice  to  take  it.  there  with  you  <  A.  N  o,  sir. 
Q.  Did  you  take  it  there  with  you  ?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  State’s  attorney,  Mr.  Wayman,  himselt  A. 

Yes  sir. 

O  When  vou  did  go  the  first  time? — A.  Yes. 

Q*  Did  he  know  that  you  were  coming?— A.  Well,  I  presume 

heQKHe  said  so,  didn’t  he?— A.  Well.  I  introduced  myself  to  hiir 
ihen  I  went  in.  I  said,  “  My  name  is  White ;  and  lie  says,  Wa  » 
... .  t  want  to  see  vou  and  have  a  talk  with  you.  I  don  t  know 
whether  he  said  I  want  to  see  you.”  He  said,  Walk  in  and  I  wil 


w 

in 


see  you. 


mm  - 

INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  159 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  then  about  your  negotiations  with  the  Trib¬ 
rie? — A.  I  didn’t  discuss  that  matter  with  him. 

Q.  What  did  you  discuss  with  him? — A.  The  matter  of  corruption 
i  the  Illinois  legislature.  1 

Q.  Did  you  refer  to  this  story  that  you  had  contracted  to  sell  to 
ie  Tribune? — A.  I  hadn’t  contracted  to  sell  the  story  to  the  Tribune. 

iQ.  You  hadn’t  made  a  contract  at  that  time? — A.  No  contract  to 

11  at  all. 

Q.  How  long  after  you  saw  the  State’s  attorney,  Wayman,  of  this 
•unty,  did  you  make  the  contract  with  the  Tribune?— A.  I  don’t 
member;  I  think  the  contract  was  made  along  the  last  of  April. 

Q.  Yes;  but  I  would  like  you  to  inform  this  honorable  committee 
oout  when  it  was,  with  reference  to  the  time  you  first  talked  with  the 
,  ate’s  attorney.  Was  it — was  it  a  week,  or  a  month,  or  two  months 
;  ter  you  talked  to  the  State’s  attorney  first? — A.  I  stated  a  little 
hile  ago  that  I  saw  Mr.  Wayman  along  in  March,  and  that  the 
'ribune  agreed  to  buy  this  story  along  the  last  of  April. 

Q.  Then  it  was  nearly  two  months  after  you  first  saw  the  State’s 
itorney  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Keeley  before  the  Tribune  published 
air  story? — A.  I  presume  about  a  month  and  a  half. 

Q.  How  many  interviews  or  conferences  did  you  have  with  the 
■  ate’s  attorney  of  this  county  before  the  story  was  published,  or  a 
I  rt  of  it,  by  the  Tribune? — A.  I  don't  remember  now  whether  I  had 
e  or  two;  I  might  have  had  two,  but  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  that  you  had  many? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  the  State’s  attorney  of  this  county  send  out  anybody  to  in- 
istigate  any  of  the  things  that  you  told  him? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  objected  to.  In  the  first  place,  he  could 
rt  have  known  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  he  don’t  know  he  may  say  so. 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  the  second  place,  it  wouldn’t  be  material  if  he 
us  informed  that  the  State’s  attorney  sent  anyone  out.  If  the  State’s 
orney  did  send  anyone  out  you  can  prove  it  by  the  State’s  attorney. 
Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  that  he 
nt  out  anyone? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  know  at  that  time,  but  after- 
rds  I  understood  that  he  did. 

Senator  Burrows.  At  that  time  did  you  know?— A.  At  that  time 
didn’t  know. 

fudge  Hanecy.  When  did  you  learn  from  the  State’s  attorney  that 
had  sent  somebody  out  to  investigate  your  story? — A.  Oh,  it  was 
no.  time  afterwards — after  the  grand  jury  proceedings  started. 

T  Was  it  before  the  printing  of  a  part  of  your  story  by  the  Trib- 
10  — A.  I  was  sent  out  with  an  officer  to  investigate  this,  but  I 
In't  know  at  that  time  the  exact  connections  of  the  officer,  but  after- 
'  rds  I  was  informed  that  he  was  sent  out  as  a  representative  of  the 
ute’s  attorney’s  office. 

Y  hat  was  the  name  of  that  officer? — A.  Mr.  T  urner 
j.  Mr.  Turner? — A.  Yes. 

d*  Mr.  Turner  is  the  superintendent  of  the  White  &  McGuire  De- 
dive  Agency,  isn’t  he?— A.  I  don’t  know  whether  he  is  superin- 
1  dent  or  not;  he  is  connected  with  them,  but  I  understand  Ihey  were 
1  the  employ  of  the  State’s  attorney’s  office  at  that  time,  i  have 
( rned  since  then. 


160  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Were  they  transferred  from  the  Tribune  to  the  State’s  attorney’s 
office  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  .  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Witness,  the  committee  wishes  you  t( 
answer  the  questions  without  elaboration.  Now  repeat  the  question 
(Last  question  read  by  reporter.) 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  your  answer  to  that  ?— A.  1  don  t  know 
judge  Hanecy.  The  State’s  attorney  had  at  that  time  six  detective: 
of  his  own  connected  with  the  State’s  attorney  s  office,  and  those  mei 
at  different  times  traveled  with  you  to  different  parts  of  this  city  anc 

different  States  of  the  Union,  didn’t  they?  _ 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  objected  to.  Supposing  the  State  s  attorney 

had  only  five. 

(Last  question  read  by  reporter.) 

A.  I  don’t  know  how  many  men  that  he  had. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  answers  that  part;  now  what  about  tb 


rest  ? 


»St  5  ' 

The  Witness.  Different  men  did  travel  with  me  at  different  time 

at  different  places  in  the  city  and  out  of  the  city. 

Judge  Hanecy.  How  many  different  men  traveled  with  you  a 

different  times?  . 

Mr  Austrian.  I  submit  that  we  went  over  that  yesterday;  h 

asked  him  and  he  said  he  went  to  Wisconsin,  to  Indiana,  and  he  aske< 
him  if  lie  stopped  at  the  best  hotels,  which  was  objected  to  and  yoi 
sustained  the  objection,  but  I  don’t  care  if  the  committee  don  t  < 
Judge  Hanecy.  How  many  men  traveled  with  you  from  the  State 
attorney’s  office  with  you  at  different  times? 

Senator  Burrows.  How  many  different  men? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Blow  many  different  men?— A.  I  don  t  know. 

Q.  About? — A.  Permit  me  to  explain  myself  by  saying  this: 
don’t  know  whether  Mr.  Turner  was  directly  connected  with  it  o 
not ;  I  am  informed  that  he  was ;  he  went  with  me  m  the  souther 

part  of  the  State.  .  ,  ,  • 

Q.  How  many  other  men  traveled  with  you  after  you  were  put  i 

the  custody  of  an  officer  ? — A.  In  the  city  ? 

O.  Yes:  in  the  city  and  out  of  the  city  ? — A.  Let  s  see,  there  was, 

think  there  was  but  five  or  six  of  them ;  I  am  not  positive. 

6.  There  were  six,  not  including  Turner,  wexen  t  there.  A. 
don’t  remember  now;  there  might  have  been  five  or  six  besid< 

^  O  Turner  was  not  connected  with  the  State’s  attorney  s  offi( 
regularly,  one  of  the  regular  employees?— A.  I  don’t  know  that; 

am  not  in  position  to  state  that.  .  T11- 

Q.  Turner  traveled  with  you  to  different  places  m  southern  Ilhn 
under  the  name  of  Tierney,  didn’t  he?— A.  He  introduced  himse 

O  He  introduced  himself  in  different  parts  of  the  State  as  Tie 
ney  ?_A.  I  don’t  know  about  different  parts  of  the  State. 

Q.  Well-  when  he  was  with  you? — A.  He  did  to  different  people  < 

he  was  with  you  at  different  parts  of  the  State  he  to 
different  people  that  vou  would  talk  with  that  his  name  was  Tierne 
didn’t  he  ?— A.  He  said  yes,  that  his  name  was  Tierney. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  161 

Judge  Hanecy.  My  purpose  in  that,  if  the  committee  pleases,  I 
-Tint  to  designate  Turner  and  Tierney  as  being  the  same  man. 

Q.  The  last  clause  of  this  contract,  of  the  main  contract  between 
ou  and  the  Tribune,  is  as  follows : 

You  reserve  to  yourself  all  book  or  other  rights  to  the  story  other  than  the 
xclusive  newspaper  rights  hereinbefore  referred  to,  which  belong  under  the 
nuns  hereof  to  the  Tribune  Company. 

What  did  you  reserve  ?  What  did  you  have  in  mind  as  reserving  to 
ou  under  that  clause? — A.  The  publication  of  the  article  in  book 
orm  or  magazine  form. 

Q.  For  sale? — A.  Well,  for  publication;  I  don’t  know  whether  it 
-Tas  for  sale,  but  pamphlet  form. 

Q.  Were  you  to  publish  it  or  have  somebody  else  do  it? — A.  I  would 
ave  to  have  somebody  else  publish  it. 

Q.  You  are  not  a  man  of  means,  are  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  have  no  property  or  other  assets  except  that  what  men 
i  your  walk  of  life,  a  conductor  or  motorman,  would  have? — A.  No, 
ir ;  I  am  not  possessed  with  means. 

Q.  You  are  not  a  married  man? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  never  have  been? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  haven’t  any  real  or  personal  property,  except  the  personal 
roperty  about  your  person  and  your  clothing,  and  so  forth?— A. 
'hat  is  about  the  extent  of  my  personal  property. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  have  it  in  mind  that  you  were  going  to  publish  a 
ook  or  have  it  put  in  the  form  of  a  book  and  have  it  copyrighted  and 
ild  ? — A.  I  might  have  had  it  put  in  a  book. 

Q.  Did  you  have  that  in  contemplation  ?  That  is  what  I  mean. — A. 
Yell,  I  would  not  state  whether  I  did  or  not.  I  don’t  know  what  I 
ad  in  mind.  My - 

Q.  Did  you  contemplate — did  you  want  to  say  something  else  ? — A. 
.sk  your  question. 

Q.  Did  you  contemplate  having  it  dramatized? — A.  No,  sir;  Iliad 
ot  figured  on  that  at  that  time. 

Q.  Your  purpose,  the  purpose  you  had  in  view  in  having  it  printed 
1  book  or  pamphlet  form,  was  for  the  purpose  of  selling  it  or 
‘alizing  money  for  it  in  some  way,  wasn’t  it?— A.  Well,  I  expected  to 
et  enough  to  pay  my  expenses,  if  I  could  put  it  in  that  form. 

Q.  Yes;  but  if  you  put  it  in  some  other  form  you  would  get  some- 
ung  more  than  expenses? — A.  In  what  other  form  have  you  refer- 
lce  to? 

Q.  In  your  answer  to  my  question  you  said  you  expected  to  get  your 
cpenses  if  you  put  it  in  that  form;  if  you  didn’t  put  it  in  that  form 
hat  did  you  expect  to  get? — A.  Well,  if  I  wanted  it  in  any  other 
irm,  if  I  wanted  it  in  pamphlet  form,  if  somebody  wanted  to  handle 
in  pamphlet  form  under  a  copyright,  that  would  be  a  different 
atter. 

Q.  You  intended  to  have  it  copyrighted,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  had 
leas  of  my  own  of  having  it  copyrighted. 

Q.  Your  purpose,  then,  was  to  prevent  anyone  else  from  publishing 
without  your  permission  and  paying  you  for  it? — A.  A V ell,  I 
an’t  know.  I  didn’t  say  without  my  permission  and  without  paying 
.e  for  it,  but  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  them  from  exaggerating  or 
Tracting  from  the  story. 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 11 


162  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  You  think  there  was  somebody  that  might  exaggerate  it  more 
than  you  did.  Is  that  possible?— A.  They  might  exaggerate  it.  ] 
think  there  has  been  considerable  exaggeration  in  some  respects  b} 
parties  on  the  other  side. 

Q.  I  read  the  fourth  clause:  “For  the  sole  and  exclusive  righl 
hereby  granted  by  you  to  the  Tribune  Company  to  publish  this  story 
or  a  revision  thereof  or  excerpts  therefrom,  in  the  Chicago  Tribune 
and  copyright  either  in  your  name  or  in  that  of  the  Tribune  Com 
pany,  but  in  which  shall' be  at  our  election  ’’—that  is,  the  Tribune- 
“  and  also  in  full  compensation  for  the  time  already  spent  by  you  ir 
assisting  us  in  obtaining  corroborative  evidence  of  the  facts  contained 
in  this  storv  ” — now  this  is  what  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to— 
“  and  in  full  compensation  for  all  your  time  which  shall  be  devotee 
by  you  to  further  substantiate  this  story  at  any  time,  which  time  voi 
hereby  agree  to  devote  to  that  purpose  as  and  when  called  upon  so  tc 
do.”  Now,  you  knew  that  if  you  did  not  substantiate  this  story 
or  if  you  did  not  get  some  corroboration  in  some  way,  your  copy 
right  or  your  ability  to  sell  or  dispose  of  it  would  not  be  worth  much 
didn’t  you? — A.  That  had  not  been  taken  into  consideration. 

Q.  You  had  not  considered  that  at  all,  had  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Why  was  this  language  in  here,  then,  that  you  were  to  devoh 
your  time  to  further — you  were  to  devote  all  of  your  time  necessan 
to  further  substantiate  this  story  at  any  time?  Why  was  that  lan 
guage  put  in  the  contract? — A/ Well,  the  inference  I  drew  from  it 
was  that  I  might  be  sent  here  or  there  or  some  place  else  in  the  Stab 
to  help  collect  evidence ;  I  didn’t  know.  I  didn’t  draw  that  contract 
Mr.  Hanecy. 

Q.  In  collecting  evidence  for  what? — A.  For  corroboration  of  th< 
story. 

Q.  Ev  idence  for  what;  did  you  and  the  Tribune  and  its  detectiv< 
and  its  attorney  intend  to  have  some  proceedings  in  some  court  com 
menced  ? — A.  I  had  no  agreement  or  understanding  to  that  effect. 

Q.  You  knew  that  they  had,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  didn’t  know  any 
thing  of  the  sort. 

Q.  You  knew  that  when  they  sent  you  to  the  State’s  attorne} 
there  was  something  contemplated  by  them  with  a  view  of  having  i 
taken  into  some  court? — A.  I  didn’t  know  what  they  intended  to  d< 
in  that  respect. 

Q.  You  knew  that  they  did  contemplate  taking  it  into  court? 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  witness  has  answered  that  he  didn’t  know  any 
thing  about  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Didn’t  you  know  that? — A.  I  didn’t  know  wha 
they  intended  to  do. 

Q.  What  did  you  think  this  language  meant,  then,  that  requirec 
you  to  further  substantiate  this  story? — A.  Well,  I  didn’t  knov 
what  it  meant ;  I  didn’t  draw  the  contract. 

Q.  You  read  it,  didn’t  you  ?— A.  I  read  the  contract. 

Q.  And  read  it,  a  number  of  times,  didn’t  you?— A.  I  read  it  ove; 
several  times;  yes. 

Q.  And  you  discussed  some  parts  of  it  and  objected  to  thems- 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  knew  that  these  provisions  required  you  to  give  a 
much  of  your  time  as  the  Tribune  Company  required  you  to  ghe  t< 
substantiate  this  story  whenever  they  called  upon  you  so  to  do 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  163 

[idn’t  you? — A.  Well,  it  was  understood  that  way,  but  I  didn’t  un¬ 
derstand  it  was  court  proceedings. 

Q.  You  knew  that  this  contract  provided  for  that,  didn’t  you? — 
L  I  knew  that  it  called  for  any  time  that  they  might  call  upon  me 
o  help  have  the  story  corroborated,  but  not  in  court.  I  didn’t 
nderstand  about  court  proceedings;  there  was  not  any  understand- 
ng  about  court  proceedings. 

Q.  You  knew  that  it  required  you  to  give  your  time  to  substantiate 
he  story,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes;  that  is  what  it  said. 

Q.  Then  who  added  this  part  to  the  part  of  the  contract  which  is 
bove  the  signature  of  J.  Keeley,  vice-president  of  the  Tribune  Com¬ 
pany  : 

'o  The  Chicago  Tribune  and  the  Tribune  Company. 

Gentlemen  :  I  have  read  the  above  and  foregoing  and  agree  to  the  terms 
lereof,  and  to  accept  the  sums  of  money  as  therein  set  forth,  and  I  further 
gree  to  devote  my  time  and  services  to  substantiate  the  story  referred  to  as, 
nd  when  requested  by  you  so  to  do,  in  such  manner  as  you  may  direct. 

Q.  Did  you  have  that  put  in? — A.  No,  sir;  I  didn’t  embody  that. 
Q.  Then  that  is  signed  Charles  A.  White? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  TV  ho  added  that  part  to  the  contract? — A.  I  don’t  know  any- 
ling  about  that. 

Q.  Sir? — A.  I  don’t  know  who  did  that. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  that  part  of  it  with  the  Tribune,  its  detective 

nd  attorney,  before  you  signed  it - A.  Well,  I  might  have 

lid - 

Q.  At  any  time? — A.  I  don’t  remember  just  exactly  what  was  said 
1  that  respect. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  substance  of  what  was  said  in  relation  to 
lat  ? — A.  Something  was  said  there  about  me  having  to  run  around 
ver  the  State  and  pay  out  additional  expense,  etc. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  you  knew,  didn’t  you,  that  the  book  that  you  re¬ 
eved  all  rights  in  relation  to  in  that  story,  would  sell  better  if  you 
yild  convict  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  or  remove  Senator  Lorimer  from 
is  place  in  the  United  States  Senate,  didn’t  you? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  whether  he  knew  the  book  would  sell  bet- 
?r  or  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  reserved  all  his  rights,  he  did  not  sell  that 
art  to  the  Tribune. 

Q.  Tou  knew,  didn’t  you,  Mr.  White,  that  that  book  would  sell 
etter — more  of  them  would  sell  at  better  prices,  and  you  would  get 
tore  mone}^  if  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  was  convicted,  or  if  Senator 
-orimer  was  removed  from  office,  didn’t  you? — A.  Well,  I  had  noth- 
ig  to  do  with  Lee  O’Neill  Browne’s  conviction  except  as  a  witness. 
Mr.  Austrian.  He  can  only  answer  in  his  own  ivay. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  has  not  answered  in  relation  to  that  at  all. 

Q.  What  was  your  answer? — A.  I  started  to  say  that  I  didn’t 
now  anything  about  the  conviction  of  Mr.  Browne  or  this  trial  of 
enator  Lorimer,  or  anything  else  prior  to  the  signing  of  that  con- 
act;  T  knew  nothing  of  those  things. 

Q.  What  did  you  think  you  went  to  the  State’s  attorney’s  office  for, 
it  were  not  in  the  Browne  case? — A.  1  went  over  there  because  they 
dd  me  it  was — it  was  a  case  for  the  State’s  attorney,  they  thought  it 
as  a  case  for  the  State’s  attorney,  and  I  did  not  know  but  he  might 
md  for  me,  so  I  went  over. 


164  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  You  say  “they”  told  you  that;  who  told  you  that? — A.  Mr, 
Keeley. 

Q.  Their  attorney?  And  the  detective,  did  they  all  tell  you  that? — 
A.  I  think  Mr.  Maguire  might  have  said  something  about  it,  I  am  not 

positive.  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  we  asked  Mr.  Aus¬ 
trian  for  Senator  Lorimer’s  reply  to  this  letter  of  December  4,  but  he 
has  not  been  able  to  find  it.  Can  you  find  a  copy  of  it  in  the  record  f( 
I  wrould  like  permission  to  put  that  in  the  record  when  you  find  it. 
Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  a  copy  of  it  here. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Will  you  let  me  take  the  copy.  This  letter  states 
that  his  story  was  worth  so  much.  The  date  of  the  letter  was  Decem¬ 
ber  4,  1909.  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  Be  careful,  Judge,  in  reading  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  understand  that  anything  that  comes  from  thi 

other  side  is  dangerous. 

Senator  Burro wts.  What  is  the  date  of  the  letter  ? 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  The  letter  from  Mr.  White  to  Senator  Lonmer  is 
December  4,  1909,  and  this  letter  is  December  13,  1909,  on  the  lettei 
head  of  William  Lorimer,  chairman.  [Beading:] 

Hon.  Charles  A.  White,  O' Fallon,  III. 

My  Dear  Sir  :  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  December  4  m  which  yoi 
advise  me  that  you  have  manuscript  ready  to  place  with  publishers  treating 
of  your  experience  as  a  member  of  the  Illinois  legislature. 

I  would  be  very  glad  indeed  to  know  of  your  success  as  an  author. 

With  kindest  personal  regards,  I  am, 

Very  truly  yours,  William  Lorimeb. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Kedirect  examination  of  Charels  A.  White  by  Mr.  Austrian 

Q.  Mr.  White,  how  old  are  you?— A.  I  am  29. 

Q.  How  old  were  you  when  a  labor  lobbyist  at  Springfield,  111.  .— 
A.  That  was  in  1907 ;  that  would  make  me  about 


Senator  Paynter.  If  I  understood  you,  Mr.  White,  correctly,  thaj 
you  hoped  to  get  a  letter  from  Senator  Lorimer  that  you  could  us< 
in  connection  with  this  publication? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  by  that,  I  suppose  that  you  expected  a  letter  from  Senate 
Lorimer  that  might  aid  to  support  your  charges.  Is  that  the  hope  yoi 
had  in  the  matter?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  had  no  evidence  against  Senato 

Lorimer  directly,  and  had  no  dealings  with  him. 

Q.  The  letter  recites  in  substance,  I  do  not  remember  the  exac 
language,  that  you  had  been  made  an  offer  or  some  inducement  hat 
been  held  out  that  indicated  that  the  manuscript  was  worth  $2.25  s 
word — or  $2.50  a  word.  I  mean.  That  is  the  language  of  it,  I  hay 
been  offered  a  sum  sufficient  to  value  the  manuscript  at  about  $2.5< 
per  word.”  Suppose,  that  Senator  Lorimer  had  placed  the  sam 
value  upon  the  manuscript  that  you  did,  and  had  offered  you  $<5,0(Jl 
would  you  have  taken  it  ?— A.  I  would  have  let  him  have  the  manu 

SC  QPtFor  $75,000.  Would  you  have  accepted  $75,000  if  he  had  offeree 
it  to  you  ?— A.  I  don’t  think  I  would ;  if  I  had  I  might  have  turned  i 

over  to  somebody  else.  9 

Q.  You  would  have  turned  the  money  over  to  some  one  elsef- 

A.  I  might  have  done  that.  ,  .  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  Prior  to  your  going  to  the  legislature,  and  prior  t 

engaging  in  the  practices  that  you  have  here  testified  to,  were  yo 


Investigation  of  charges  against  william  lorimer.  165 

wer  charged  with  engaging  in  any  corrupt  transactions  of  any  kind 
vhatsoever? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Judge  Hanecy,  in  his  examination  of  you,  embodied  in  the 
[uestion  detailing  the  conversation  which  he  says  you  are  alleged  to 
iave  had  with  one  Catherine  Woods  the  statement  that  you  killed 

wo  men,  a  white  man  and  a  black  man.  Did  you  ever  kill  anyone  ? _ 

L  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  arrested  on  a  charge  of  murder  or  any  other 
harge ? — A.  No,  sir;  never  arrested  in  my  life. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  charged  with  any  other  offense?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  TV  hite,  prior  to  your  dealings  with  the  Chicago  Tribune, 
?hich  you  stated  you  entered  into,  beginning  in  about  the  early  part 
f  March,  1910,  had  you  completed  this  story? — A.  Prior  to  the  time 
he  Tribune  agreed  to  publish  it,  do  you  mean  ? 

Q.  No;  prior  to  the  time  of  your  opening  up  negotiations  with 
hem,  had  you  completed  the  story? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  prior  to  the  time  you  had  these  negotiations  had  you 
ompleted  the  story?— A.  I  added  some  to  the  story  after  the  special 
ession.  It  might  have  been — the  story  went  to  New  York  some  tim® 
a  February. 

Senator  Burrows.  February,  1910? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Prior  to  that,  when  had  you  completed  the  story  with  reference 
a  the  Lorimer  election  ?— A.  The  story  with  reference  to  the  Lorimer 
lection  was  completed  in  September,  I  think — the  other  part  of  it. 

Q.  In  September,  1909? — A.  1909. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  has  the  story  as  written  by  you  been  changed  in  any 
articular  whatsoever? — A.  At  what  time  do  you  mean? 

Q.  At  any  time,  any  statements,  declarations,  or  testimony  given 
y  you  in  court,  has  it  varied  from  the  written  manuscript  in  any 
Tay,  so  far  as  you  know  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  After  the  writing  of  the  letter  of  December  4,  1909,  to  Senator 
-orimer,  and  the  receipt  of  his  reply  offered  in  evidence  here  on  De- 
3mber  13, 1909,  or  thereabouts,  did  you  embody  the  substance  of  your 
Iter  to  him  arid  his  reply  to  you  in  your  confession  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  and  has  it  been  there  over  since? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  TT  hite,  you  were  asked  what  proportion  of  your  confession 
as  published  in  the  Tribune,  and  you  stated  that  there  might  have 
een  one-fifth  or  one-sixth  or  one-quarter,  that  you  did’t  know,  as  I 
nderstand  your  testimony.  If  the  confession  is  exhibited  to  you 
ow,  can  you  fully  explain  to  the  committee  as  to  the  portion  of 
le  story  that  was  printed  in  the  Tribune? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  do  so? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  can  state  about  how  much  of 
more  accurately. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  want  to  know  (handing  witness  a  book).  Give 
as  best  you  can;  I  do  not  want  you  to  take  the  time  to  read  it. — A. 
think  it  was  divided  into  parts.  * 

Q.  Did  they  not  print  substantially  their  part,  as  you  now  recall 
,  with  reference  to  the  so-called  “jack  pot”  and  with  reference  to 
ie  so-called  “Lorimer  election?” — A.  Particularly  specific  state- 

lents. 

Q.  A  large  part  of  your  confession  was  devoted  to  personal  com- 
ients  and  opinions,  was  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  These  they  didn’t  print,  did  they? — A.  No,  sir;  I  made  copies 

iso. 


166  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Those  they  didn’t  print  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  They  printed  the  other? — A.  They  did  not  go  into  the  de¬ 
tails — 

Q.  (Interrupting.)  When  you  went  to  the  Chicago  Tribune  11 
March,  1910,  did  they  not  state  to  you,  sir,  then  and  there,  that  unti 
the  story  was  verified  through  channels  which  they  might  select  tha 
they  would  not  print  the  story.  Did  they  not  make  that  reply,  ii 
substance? 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  witness,  Mr.  Austrian,  should  be  allowed  t< 
state  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  directing  him. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  are  suggesting  the  substance  of  what  he  ill 
to  answer,  leaving  him  the  opportunity  to  say  yes  or  no  to  it.  I 
is  not  proper  to  put  a  witness  upon  the  stand  and  suggest  to  hin 
the  form  of  his  answer  or  the  substance  of  it. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  does  not  hardly  apply.  Is  not  this  witnes 
summoned  here  by  this  committee? 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  the  witness  desires  to  have  Mr.  Austrian  testify 

put  it  in  his  words. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  objection  might  be  that  it  was  not  legal. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  was  said  with  reference  to  the  publication 
of  the  story  or  anything  with  reference  to  the  necessity  of  the  rati 
fication  before  it  was  published,  or  anything  on  that  line?— A.  A 
I  remember  now  they  wanted  time  to  investigate  it  and  have  corrobo 
ration  of  the  story. 

Q,  Yes,  sir;  and  did  you  assist  in  any  way  in  that  corroboration ?- 
A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  If  so,  state  what  you  did.— A.  I  went  with  an  officer  or  detectiv 
to  some  of  the  members  in  southern  Illinois,  Representative  Becke 
meyer.  Representative  Clark,  Representative  Sheppard,  and  Repre 
sentative  Link,  and  talked  with  those  men,  or  was  with  the  officei— 
with  the  detective— at  the  time  he  talked  with  these  men  in  nr 
presence,  and  I  also  talked  with  them  in  his  presence. 

Q.  Did  you  20  and  get  documents,  or  examine  documents,  wit] 
the  officer  at  different  times,  checks,  hotel  registers,  and  the  like 
Yes  or  no;  I  don’t  know  whether  you  did  or  not. — A.  We  examine* 
those  things  later  on;  yes,  sir.  I  did  not  go  to  hotels  and  examin 
the  register  there. 

Q.  Did  you  remain  in  the  city  of  Chicago  between  the  first  visi 
to  Mr.  Keeley  to  the  last  visit,  with  reference  to  the  taking  up  0 
this  story,  any  length  of  time?— A.  Well,  I  don’t  remember  nov 
Between  the  first  visit  and  the  last  visit - 

Q.  Prior  to  the  publication  of  this  story  were  you  not  in  Chicag 
most  of  the  time? — A.  I  stayed  here  a  good  deal  of  the  time. 

Q.  This  $250  you  have  referred  to,  was  that  paid  you  by  th 
Tribune  before  you  entered  into  this  agreement  or  subsequent  there 
to? — A.  It  was  prior. 

Q.  Was  it  paid  to  you  in  one  amount  or  a  number  ot  times  n 

Q.  Was  it  paid  to  you  in  one  amount  or  a  number  of  times  in 
installments?— A.  In  small  payments,  different  amounts. 

Q.  What  was  it  paid  to  vou  for?— A.  Expenses. 

Q.  That  was  to  be  paid  to  you  whether  the  story  was  accepted  0 
not? — A.  Yes,  sir;  they  were  to  pay  my  expenses. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  167 


Q.  Counsel  has  read  in  evidence  here  a  letter  from  you  to  Lee 
)’Neill  Browne  on  or  about  the  16th  of  September — the  date  has 
scaped  my  mind — in  which  you  asked  Browne  to  loan  you  some 
jioney. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  8th  of  September. 

Q.  You  wrote  such  a  letter,  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  As  was  exhibited  to  you  here  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Counsel  then  asked  you  whether  or  not  you  had  received  $1,000 
f  the  so-called  “  Lorimer  ”  money  and  $900  of  the  so-called  u  jack¬ 
et  ”  money,  and  you  testified,  I  believe,  that  you  had. — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  I  will  ask  you  now  what  had  become  of  the  $1,900  which  you 
ad  received  from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  of  the  Lorimer  and  jack-pot 
loney  on  the  8th  day  of  September,  when  you  undertook  to  borrow 
rom  Lee  O’Neill  Browne? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that.  That  is  the  very  question  that 
ras  presented  to  this  committee  yesterday,  and  it  was  argued  very 
ully.  and  the  objection  was  sustained  on  the  ground  that  he  could 
ot  corroborate  himself  by  showing  by  Miss  Van  de  Veen  or  somebody 
lse  that  at  a  certain  time  he  had  certain  money  and  paid  certain  bills 
f  his  and  did  certain  other  things.  It  is  done  simply  to  corroborate 
is  testimony  by  building  up  and  projecting  into  this  proceeding 
acts  and  circumstances  created  by  himself.  He  might  go  around 
nd  tell  different  people  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  said  that  was  premature;  that  it  might  not  be 
isputed.  You  remember  the  question?  You  will  remember  the 
uestion.  Judge  Hanecy,  to  this  witness.  You  received  $1,000  on  the 
5th  dav  of  June  and  $900  on  the  16th  day  of  July;  that  is,  $1,900, 
nd  still  on  the  8th  day  of  September,  less  than  two  months  after 
he  receipt  of  this  $1,900,  you  were  trying  to  borrow  $50  from  Lee 
)’Neill  Browne.  What  was  the  purpose  of  that?  It  is  for  the  pur- 
)Ose  of  making  his  story  appear  improbable,  that  if  he  had  received 
1.900  in  June  and  July  what  would  necessitate  the  borrowing  of 
.50  or  $25  from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  on  the  8th  day  of  September? 
Ia ven ’t  I  a  right  to  show  what  became  of  the  money?  1  he  law  is 
bsolutely  clear  that  where  it  is  contended  that  a  story  is  of  recent 
abrication  that  any  statement  or  acts  by  the  witness  when  the  motive 
^as  not  there — the"  impelling  force  was  not  there — is  perfectly  com- 
>etent  evidence. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  willing  to  go  into  these  authorities  more 
ully  than  I  did,  because  I  have  a  great  line  of  authorities. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  question?  Bead  it,  please. 

(Last  question  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  can  answer  that  question. 

A.  I  paid  off  a  number  of  bills  immediately  after  I  went  to  East 
]t.  Louis  from  Chicago,  on  the  18th,  19th,  and  about  the  21st  of 
rune.  I  also  spent  a  great  deal  of  money  on  a  visit  to  the  South; 
hat  is,  of  the  Lorimer  money  principally  that  I  got  in  Chicago; 
nd  I  spent  a  good  deal  of  the  money  in  company  with  Browne  on 
he  vacations  we  had  here  on  the  lake  and  different  places  in  Chi- 
ago,  and  I  spent  a  great  deal  of  money  in  company  with  my  friends, 
can  almost  account  for  the  different  payments  in  that  respect. 
Senator  Burrows.  Did  you  say  on  the  18th,  19th,  and  20th? 

A.  The  21st.  I  think,  was  Sunday  following  the  20th.  There  were 
;ome  bills  paid  off  then  and  some  debts. 


168  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  referring  to  the  letter  introduced  in  evidence  of 
September  9,  1909,  in  reply  to  your  request  for  $50  from  Browne. 
Browne  says,  “  I  am  pretty  hard  up  myself  after  the  fierce  vacations 
we  all  had,  but  have  managed  to  scratch  out  the  fifty  for  you.”  What 
vacations  did  he  refer  to? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object. 

Q.  What  vacations  or  trips  did  you  make  with  Browne  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  house  in  June,  1909,  and  the  writing  of  this  letter 
on  September  9,  1909? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit,  if  these  collateral  matters  are  to  be  gone 
into — would  it  not  be  competent,  I  submit,  to  have  this  man  state 
facts  and  circumstances  not  created  by  somebody  else,  not  what 
somebody  else  told  him  tending  to  corroborate  or  substantiate  his 
testimony  as  to  the  important  question.  The  authorities,  I  submit 
are  uniform,  and  I  read  a  number  of  them  to  this  honorable  com¬ 
mittee  yesterday,  but  only  a  very  small  number,  that  that  testimom 
is  in  no  way  competent.  The  witness  can  not  corroborate  himselj 
by  facts  and  circumstances  that  he  did  not  create.  It  is  not  com¬ 
petent  and  never  has  been  held  competent  by  any  court  that  a  wit 
ness  can  create  facts  and  circumstances  and  invoke  them  to  substan 
tiate  his  main  testimony. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Upon  the  subject  you  have  just  presented,  whal 
is  the  objection  to  offering  the  testimony  as  to  his  attempt  to  borrow 
money  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  was  the  entire  correspondence.  Mr.  Austrian 
as  this  honorable  committee  will  remember,  introduced  a  part  of  tli( 
correspondence  between  the  witness  White  and  Browne,  and  that  i‘ 
all  they  introduced;  I  think  three  or  four  letters,  and  then  stopped 
They  did  not  introduce  the  entire  correspondence.  I  think  three  oi 
four  letters  and  then  stopped.  They  did  not  introduce  the  entiri 
correspondence,  so  that  this  honorable  committee  would  have  every 
thing  in  the  way  of  correspondence  created  by  these  parties,  prio; 
to  the  arising  of  any  controversy  or  difference  between  them.  An( 
that  eliminated  all  of  the  letters  before  the  9th  of  June.  The  firs 
letter  they  introduced  and  the  second  was  the  13th.  They  did  no 
introduce  the  one  of  the  24th,  and  they  did  not  introduce  any  afte 
that.  Now,  I  introduced  this  letter  of  July  9  and  the  reply,  and 
went  through  the  others  to  the  end.  I  introduced  every  letter  an( 
every  telegram,  and  every  piece  of  writing  or  particle  of  evidence 
created  by  either  of  the  parties  in  connection  with  the  other.  Tha 
was  the  purpose  of  putting  that  in,  Senator  Heyburn.  The  mere  far 
that  a  fact  is  created,  that  this  witness  has  created  himself,  at  dif 
ferent  times,  the  fact  that  those  facts  that  warrant  a  certain  infereno 
or  a  certain  inference  to  be  drawn  from  them,  and  every  fact  and  ever 
circumstance  created  by  a  party  may  have  an  inference  drawn  fron 
it,  but  the  fact  that  an  inference  may  be  drawn  from  them,  does  no 
break  down,  avoid  or  set  aside  the  rule  of  evidence  that  he  can  no 
build  up  his  original  testimony  by  facts  and  circumstances  created  bj 
himself.  If  he  may,  then  he  may  go  out  and  tell  a  hundred  or  i 
thousand  men  his  story  in  all  its  details,  with  all  of  his  strength  ant 
force,  and  then  bring  in  all  those  different  parties. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  think  the  committee  recognizes  that  prin 
ciple;  but  my  suggestion  was  simply  to  draw  your  attention  to  th 
purpose  for  which  you  introduced  the  letter  from  the  witness  asking 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  169 

f  Mr.  Browne  a  loan  of  money,  presumably  for  the  purpose  of  sliow- 
lg  that  he  could  not  have  had  the  money,  otherwise  he  would  not  be 
orrowing  it. 

J udge  Hanecy.  I  will  say,  Senator  Heyburn,  that  that  would  be  a 
lir  inference  from  the  facts  that  he  created.  They  were  facts 
seated  by  him  at  a  time  when  there  was  no  controversy  between  the 
itness  and  Browne  and  no  controversy  between  the  witness  and 
enator  Lorimer,  and  no  facts,  circumstances,  or  conditions  that 
light  induce  the  witness  to  falsify  or  tell  what  was  not  true,  and  not 
hen  conditions  had  arisen  by  which  these  things  were  made  importa¬ 
nt  for  him  to  falsify,  but  conditions  as  they  existed  at  that  time, 
le  can  not  be  allowed  to  go  back  and  bring  in  here  facts,  circum- 
ances,  and  conditions  that  he  created  himself  that  might  corrobo- 
ite,  sustain,  or  substantiate  his  testimony.  The  rule  of  evidence  is 
niform  upon  that.  If  it  were  not  so,  why  any  witness  could  go  out 
nd  deliberately  create  facts  and  circumstances  and  then  bring  them 
1,  or  refer  to  them  or  bring  in  the  parties  who  saw  certain  things, 
[lustrations  were  given  by  the  different  courts  of  last  resort  in  the 
ifferent  States  in  a  few  of  the  cases  I  have  here,  and  I  will  say  to 
lis  honorable  committee  that  I  have  many  more  along  the  same  line. 
Senator  Heyburn.  The  committee  has  no  doubt  in  regard  to  that 
lestion  that  a  man  can  not  build  up  his  case  by  self-serving  testi¬ 
mony.  My  question  did  not  go  into  that  at  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  understand,  Senator  Heyburn,  that  the  purpose 
1  the  question  was  to  inquire  whether  I  had  in  mind  the  inference 
uit  everybody  knowing  the  facts  must  have  had.  He  swears  he  had 
1,900  in  his  possession  that  he  obtained  between  the  15th  of  June 
id  the  17th  of  July,  and  in  less  than  two  months  after  that  he  was 
growing  money  from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne. 

Senator  Frazier.  For  what  purpose  did  you  introduce  that  letter 
om  Mr.  White  to  Mr.  Browne  asking  for  a  loan  of  $50?  Was  it 
it  for  the  purpose  of  discrediting  the  witness  that  he  could  not  have 
id  just  prior  to  that  $1,900? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  was  one  of  the  things. 

Senator  Frazier.  If  that  was  the  purpose,  why  is  it  not  competent 
>r  the  witness  to  explain  why  he  did  not  have  the  $1,900? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  not  the  purpose.  He  is  trying  now  to 
lild  up  his  testimony,  to  support,  corroborate,  and  substantiate 

mself. 

Senator  Frazier.  He  didn’t  build  up  anything;  you  introduced  the 
tier  yourself. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Fie  created  it. 

Senator  Frazier.  That  was  before  any  controversy  arose,  and  you 
troduced  it  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  he  could  not  have  been 
•rrect  in  his  statement,  or  at  least,  that  it  was  not  reasonable  to  be 
ferred  that  he  was  correct  in  his  statement  that  he  had  $1,900  only 
month  or  two  before,  because  at  this  particular  time  in  September 
*  was  asking  to  borrow  $50.  It  was  testimony  you  introduced, 
ow,  having  introduced  that  testimony,  why  is  it  not  competent  for 
m  to  state  why  he  did  not  have  the  $1,900  and  what  lie  did  with  it? 
Judge  Hanecy.  Because  the  testimony  I  introduced  was  evidence — - 
;icontra dieted  evidence — that  this  witness  created  himself  at  that 
me.  It  is  not  open  to  controversy.  It  is  not  controverted  and 
n  not  be  a  controverted  fact  that  the  testimony  I  introduced  there 


170  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


was  created  by  this  witness.  If  it  were  the  testimony  of  some  other 
witness,  and  he  denied  it,  or  if  some  other  witness  stated  that  he 
asked  Browne  for  $50,  at  a  certain  time  and  place,  and  Browne 
loaned  it  to  him,  or  did  not  loan  it  to  him,  and  he  denied  it,  then 
there  might  be  some  plausibility  at  least  in  the  argument  that  he 
would  have  a  right  to  controvert  that  question.  But  here  the  evi¬ 
dence  that  was  introduced  is  not  controverted.  He  admits  here  under 
oath  that  it  was  his  handwriting;  that  he  did  it  for  a  purpose.  h.ow, 
what  he  wants  to  do  or  what  his  counsel  wants  to  do  for  him,  is  to. 
create  conditions  or  facts  and  circumstances  to  overcome  the  created 
fact  and  circumstances,  when  there  is  a  controversy  between  him  and 
somebody  else  to  overcome  the  effect  of  the  uncontro verted  testimony 
that  he  created  at  the  time  of  the  transaction.  This  same  testimony 
was  offered  on  the  trial  of  the  People  against  Lee  O  Neill  Browne, 
and  this  witness  was  asked  that,  and  he  brought  up  his  stenographer 
here.  They  introduced,  or  attempted  to  introduce,  on  the  trial  ot  the 

People 


Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  excuse  me?  I  do  not  think  the  com- 
mittee  will  be  aided  any  by  rehearsing  what  the  court  did  m  some 

0t  jeudgeaHANEcy.  I  do  not  think  that  is  true.  Established  author 
ities  should  be  recognized  so  far  as  they  are  respectabeauBmnties 
This  was  a  proceeding  between  these  same  parties,  and  this  sam( 
evidence  was?  offered,  and  my  purpose  was  not  to  show  what  th( 
ruling  of  the  court  was  there,  especially,  but  for  the  purpose  of  show 
ing  what  this  witness  attempted  to  show  or  what  these  parties  a 
tempted  to  show  to  sustain  himself.  He  brought  m  a  Miss  Vande 
Veen  a  lady  friend  of  his  down  there  to  testify  that  she  saw  hn 
with  'certain  money,  and  that  she  saw  him  pay  certain  debts.  An. 
that  is  the  very  thing  you  discussed  yesterday,  and  before  we  go 
through  citing 'authorities  to  this  honorable  committee.  Now,  it  i 
true  that  facts  and  circumstances  not  created  by  the  witness  him  J 
mav  be  mven  in  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  corroborating  or  sub 
stantiating  the  testimony  of  the  witness  but  that  is  always  a  judicia 
question,  and  judic  al  authorities  must  determine  if  the  facts  an 
circumstances  are  such  that  they  sustain  the  principal  collates, 
facts  stated  by  the  witness  on  the  mam  question  itself,  1  hev  ai 
not  competent  when  the  facts  and  circumstances  are  created  or  cor 
trolled  by  the  witness  who  is  attempting  to  give  his  testimony  upo 
them.  If  there  is  any  doubt  about  it,  I  will  refer  to  these  caseswhed 
the  courts  of  last  resort  have  passed  upon  the  question  and  have  he^ 
that  the  testimony  is  not  competent.  If  a  man  may  c°mmt 
offense— if  a  man  may  commit  perjury— if  a  man  ™5'll,tl,| 
and  tell  a  plausible  story  when  he  is  charged  with  the  falsehort 
and  perjury,  and  may  make  explanations  created  by  himself,  h 
vou  could  never  get  at  the  real  truth  of  the  facts  and  the  condition 
because  the  man  would  be  a  dummy  if  he  could  not  create  or  ha 
created  for  him,  a  theory  and  a  plausible  excuse  that  would  overcon 
a  plain  statement  made  by  him  in  his  original  letters,  and  that 

^ "m a v 1 1 ' add'  in  further  answer  to  Senator  Frazier  that  the  purpos 
was  in  introducing  this  correspondence,  that  letter  and  that  no 
was  to  give  to  this  honorable  committee  all  of  the  corresponded 
betweei/the  two  parties,  Browne  and  White.  The  other  side  on 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOR1MER.  171 

ave  two;  I  gave  all.  I  wanted  all  of  them  produced,  not  for  the 
urpose  of  discrediting  him  upon  that  question  alone,  but  for  the 
urpose  of  showing  the  relationship  between  Browne  and  White, 
rowne  was  the  Democratic  leader  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
ad  White  was  a  Democratic  member  of  the  House.  There  was  a 
introversy  between  the  Democrats  as  to  the  leadership,  and  after 
rowne  had  been  elected  leader,  then  some  of  the  minority  of  the 
•emocratic  party  still  adhered  to  Tippit,  another  leader,  and  refused 
>  follow  the  leadership  of  Browne  in  some  matters.  This  witness 
id  not,  he  was  an  adherent  of  leader  Browne  on  the  Democratic 
de,  and  their  relationship  had  always  been  friendly.  The  Demo- 
•atic  national  committeeman  was  there.  One  of  the  factions  in  the 
gislature  on  the  Democratic  side  was  an  adherent  of  the  national 
immitteeman  and  the  other  was  not,  and  they  had  trouble  there, 
o  show  the  relationship  of  this  witness  with  Browne  and  Browne’s 
‘lationship  with  this  witness,  we  can  show  that  this  witness  had 
Led  favors  time  after  time  from  Browne,  and  had  borrowed  not 
ily  this  time,  but  before  and  afterwards  from  Browne  and  that 
rowne  had  loaned  him  money  and  they  were  all  introduced  here 
i  evidence,  and  we  can  show  this  witness  with  all  the  friendly 
lations  that  existed  between  them  and  the  favors  done  by  Browne 
>r  him,  that  this  man  betrayed  him.  Why,  what  was  the  motive? 
here  must  have  been  some,  and  it  must  be  the  $75,000,  or  some  other 
>nsiderable  consideration,  or  a  man  would  not  ordinarily  do  the 
dngs  that  this  witness  testifies  he  did  do.  That  is  not  open  to 
•ntroversy.  This  witness  asked  Browne  to  get  him  a  position.  He 
stifles  to  that  here.  To  get  him  a  job  as  a  conductor  with  the  trac- 
an  company  in  East  St.  Louis,  but  Browne  did  not  succeed  in  doing 
at;  then  he  asked  him  to  get  him  a  job,  and  Browne  tried,  and  did 
it  him  a  job,  and  then  he  refused  to  take  it.  That  is  why  this 
tter  was  introduced  and  why  this  note  and  other  instruments  were 
troduced,  showing  the  relationship  between  the  parties  by  the  acts 
‘  the  parties  that  were  created  by  them  at  times  and  the  different 
ansactions  before  any  controversy  arose  between  them.  But  after 
at  it  became  necessary  for  one  of  the  parties  to  explain  away  the 
cts  that  were  created  at  the  time.  Now,  that  is  why  we  introduce  it, 
id  I  submit  that  he  can  not  now  go  on  and  build  up  the  facts  and 
Tcumstances,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  refer  to  a  few  of  these 
■ses,  if  this  honorable  committee  desires  it;  and  I  think  it  will  settle 
1  e  question  beyond  any  doubt. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Why  not  let  counsel  submit  to  the  committee  the 
se  that  he  says  is  the  strongest  in  his  favor,  and  let  me  submit  to 
e  committee  the  case  I  say  is  the  strongest  on  my  side  of  the  ques- 
>n,  and  the  committee  can  then  determine.  Each  select  our  most 
vorable  case,  and  the  committee  can  then  determine  where  the  pre- 
mderance  of  authorities  are.  There  isn’t  a  shadow  of  doubt  about 
I  am  not  trying  to  introduce  any  evidence  that  was  created  after 
e  controversy  arose.  I  am  simply  asking  this  man  to  account  for 
e  money  that  Judge  Hanecy  asked  him  about,  that  is  all.  The 
cts  are  there.  The  facts  occurred  long  prior  to  this  controversy — 
ng  prior  to  the  arising  of  any  motive  that  would  tend  to  make 
e  witness  change  his  testimony;  that  is  all  I  am  trying  to  do. 
Senator  Burrows.  What  authorities  do  you  allude  to? 


172  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Jud^e  Hanecy.  I  have  a  long  line  of  them. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  chair  will  make  this  suggestion,  that  yoi 
proceed  with  this  witness  on  some  other  point,  and  the  committee 
will  consider  this  question  after  the  recess. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  hand  the  committee  one  or  two  volumes  . 
Senator  Burrows.  Yes,  we  would  be  very  glad  to  have  you.  Yoi 
can  examine  the  witness  upon  some  other  point. 

Q.  At  the  suggestion  of  the  chairman,  leaving  that  subject  fo: 
the  time  beins,  Mr.  White,  there  was  offered  to  you  to  identify 
yesterday,  a  letter,  or  a  printed  copy  or  a  purported  printed  cop: 
of  a  letter  written  by  you  to  the  Belleville  Democrat  on  May  29 

1909.  Do  you  recall  that?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  a  letter  in  which  you  gave  to  the  editor  of  the  news 
paper,  the  Belleville  Democrat,  your  reasons  for  '\oting  for  Senato 
Lorimer?—  A.  Well,  it  was  not  my  reasons  entirely. 

Q.  I  mean,  that  the  letter  purported  to  give  your  reasons  for  vot 

ing  for  Senator  Lorimer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  the  letter  I  refer  to?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  how  that  letter  was  written 
by  whom  and  what  part  you  took  in  it? — A.  The  letter  was  writtei 
by — it  was  a  typewritten  letter — Mr.  Browne;  it  was  prac 
tically  his  own  dictation.  The  letter  was  a  typewritten  letter,  as 
stated,  and  was  practically  Browne’s  dictation.  He  was  consults 
about  the  letter,  and  the  letter  came  up  as  a  result  of  what  Edito 
Kern  had  in  his  paper  said  about  the  men  who  voted  for  Senato 
Lorimer.  and  the  reading  of  that  article  suggested  this  letter. 

Q.  Browne  did?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  thereupon  was  the  letter  written?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Browne  have  anything  to  do  with  writing  the  letter?— i 

Yes,  sir ;  he  made  a  number  of  changes  in  it.  . 

Q.  What  was  your  motive  or  reasons  for  sending  that  letter? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  withdraw  it. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  Catherine  Woods  has  been  mentioned  to  you  as  or. 
of  the  persons  to  whom  you  stated  that  you  were  going  to  mat 
Browne  “  come  across,”  and  Senator  Lorimer  “  come  across  '  an 
travel  around  the  world  from  Mexico  to  Asia  and  back.  Do  vo 
know  Catherine  Woods? — A.  I  knew  her  to  go  in  and  buy  cigai 
I  have  been  out  with  her  three  or  four  times,  possibly  five  times, 

Q.  Was  that  the  entire  extent  of  your  acquantance  with  her  ?—  -- 

Substantially  so.  .  . 

Q  William  Sturmer  was  mentioned  to  you  on  cross-exammatio 

that  you  had  unfolded  a  conspiracy  to  obtain  money  from  Id 
O’Neill  Browne  and  Senator  Lorimer  and  make  them  come  across, 
etc.  How  well  had  you  known  Mr.  Sturmer? — A.  I  only  met  hi) 
that  summer  there. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Browne  introduce  you  to  him  ?— A.  x  es,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  a  friend  of  Browne’s? — A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  the  entire  extent  of  your  acquaintance  with  him?- 
A.  Yes,  sir;  when  I  met  him  with  Browne. 

Q.  Fred  Zentner  was  represented  to  be  a  gentleman  to  whom  yc 
unfolded  a  deal  to  hold  some  one  up  and  make  them  come  across  an 
then  take  a  trip  to  Europe  ? — A.  1  es,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  173 

Q.  Had  you  ever  seen  him  ? — A.  I  never  saw  him  until  that  August 
)  there.  I  met  him  there,  and  Brown  was  there ;  he  was  a  friend  of 
rowne’s. 

Q.  That  was  the  extent  of  your  acquaintance  with  him? — A.  Yes, 

Q.  That  was  the  extent  of  your  acquaintance  with  him  in  August 
hen  Browne  was  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Just  when  Browne  was  making  these  trips  with  you,  was  it 
!>t? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Stunner  and  Zentner  with  you  on  these  trips? — A.  Zent- 
)\Y  accompanied  us  on  one  or  two  trips. 

Q.  Accompanied  you  as  the  friend  of  Browne’s,  didn’t  he? — A. 
es,  sir. 

Q.  He  is  the  man  whom  you  are  supposed  to  have  unfolded  this 
cal  to?  Is  he  the  same  man? — A.  That  is  the  man  that  has  been 
isntioned. 

Q.  William  Rossell,  the  man  referred  to  as  connected  with  the 
Ibor  movement,  what  acquaintance  did  you  have  with  him? — A.  I 
1 3t  William  Rossell  in  1907. 

Q.  At  Springfield? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  acquaintance  intimate  or  otherwise? — A.  Well,  yes; 

associated  a  good  deal,  and  I  loaned  him  some  money. 

Q.  And  he  loaned  you  some  ? — A.  No,  sir ;  he  never  loaned  me  any. 
le  never  paid  it  back. 

Q.  Will  you  detail  to  the  committee  the  entire  conversation  that 
u  had  with  William  Rossell  at  the  Palmer  House,  in  the  city  of 
liicago,  which  conversation  was  referred  to  in  part  by  Judge 
lanecy — an  alleged  conversation — referred  to  in  part  by  Judge 
lanecy? — A.  Yes,  sir;  when  I  saw  Mr.  Rossell  I  asked  him  if  he 
r  ew  from  what  source  the  money  came - 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  is  the  same  conversation  referred  to  by  Judge 
lanecy  in  his  questions  yesterday? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  asked  Mr.  Rossell 
i  he  knew  from  what  source  the  money  came  from  that  was  used  in 
acting  Senator  Lorimer  and  he  told  me,  44  Well,  that  he  was  reliablv 
i  formed  ” - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  is  detailing  a  conversation  of  which  you  drew 
t  a  part,  and  he  is  entitled  to  bring  out  the  rest  of  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  purpose  of  this  testimony  is  as  follows:  The 
estion  was  put  by  Judge  Hanecy  to  Mr.  White  upon  the  witness 
■md  yesterday,  44  Did  you  have  a  talk  with  Rossell?”  and  he  mi¬ 
tred,  he  did.  “During  that  conversation  did  Rossell  say  to  you. 
ou  are  flying  pretty  high  for  a  labor  skate,’  ”  and  didn’t  you  say 
Rossell — I  do  not  pretend  to  quote  him  exactly — but  44  Do  you 
'  ow  anything  with  reference  to  corruption  in  the  last  session  of  the 
Ipslature,”  and  he  said,  44  No,  sir;  I  do  not;”  and  didn’t  you  say 
I  him  something  with  reference  to  bribery  with  reference  to  the 
•ction  of  Senator  Lorimer,  or  some  reference  to  that  subject,  and 
1  said,  44  No,  sir.”  Now,  haven’t  I  the  right — he  saying  that  he  did 
!  ve  a  talk  with  Mr.  Rossell  bearing  upon  this  subject — haven’t  I  the 
i  Jit  to  have  him  disclose  what  the  talk  was? 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  witness  said  he  didn’t  have  any  such  conver¬ 
sion  as  I  read  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Rossell  on  another  trial. 


174  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  exclude  the  answer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  didn’t  answer. 

Senator  Burrows.  Then  we  will  sustain  the  objection. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  this  William  Joy  who  was  referred  to  by  counse 
yesterday,  is  a  man  who  keeps  a  saloon  at  Springfield  to  whom  yoi 
were  supposed  to  have  said  something  about  that  you  veie  going  tc 
get  Lorimer,  and  get  this  man,  and  get  money,  and  make  this  trip 
Did  vou  ever  see  him  to  know  him  before  you  met  him  in  the  crimina 
court  building,  if  you  did  meet  him  there,  and  he  was  pointed  ou 
to  you  there?— A.  Not  to  my  knowledge.  Never  saw  the  man  befor 

in  my  life  that  I  know  of.  . 

Q "  Do  vou  remember  of  any  such  conversation  of  unfolding  to  hin 

what  it  is  claimed  you  did  unfold ;  if  so,  you  would  probably  remem 

ber  it?— A.  Yes,  sir.  .  ,  ,  x  , 

Q,  You  were  asked  something  with  reference  to  haying  procurei 

some  one  to  put  Yarbrough  upon  the  pay  roll  as  a  janitor.  Do  yo 

recollect  that  ? — A.  Tes,  sir.  c 

Q  Who  caused  him  to  be  put  upon  the  pay  roll  of  the  State  o 
Illinois  as  a  janitor?— A.  Lee  O'Neill  Browne ;  nearly  all  of  the  mem 
bers  were  permitted— it  is  a  system  in  vogue,  and  nearlv  ail  th 
members  are  permitted  to  have  one  or  more  men  appointed  to  dii 
ferent  positions  in  the  house  through  the  leaders  of  the  house. 

O.  How  manv  men,  if  you  know,  did  Browne  have  upon  that  pa 
roll  under  similar  conditions? — A.  Yell,  sir,  I  cant  tell  about  ho1 
many,  but  I  know  at  the  time  I  got  the  appointment  for  l  arbroug 
on  the  pay  roll  he  gave  another  representative  a  slip  of  paper  ai 
thorizing  die  appointment  of  another  man ;  but  it  was  understoo 
with  all  of  us  that  the  followers  of  the  Democrats  had  men  aj 

pointed  by  the  leaders.  .  , 

Q  This  man  George  Gloss,  the  motorman  referred  to  m  the  cros: 

examination  of  Judge  Hanecy,  how  long  had  you  known  Georg 

Gloss? _ A.  I  knew  Mr.  Gloss  several  years  before  that 5  he  vorke 

in  East  St.  Louis,  on  the  cars  there,  on  the  O'Fallon  division. 

O.  Did  vou  have  any  conversation  with  him  m  reference  to  tr 
subject-matter  of  which  he  interrogated  you  on  cross-exammatic 
Yesterday  *— A.  Well,  some  time  after  the  election  of  Senator  Lor 
mer  there  may  have  been  something  said  then ;  he  may  have  asked  n 

why  I  voted  for  Lorimer.  .  .  . 

Q  State  what  vour  best  recollection  is,  was  there  any  sue 

talk  * _ A.  He  asked  me  why  I  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer;  but 

don't  remember  now  just  the  answer  I  gave  him;  I  evaded  givn 

him  an  answer  along  that  line.  , 

Q.  You  were  asked  whether  or  not  you  were  not  an  adherent  < 
Governor  Deneen  yesterday,  and  you  were  shown  a  letter  wntt( 
from  Browne  to  you  with  reference  to  wiring  for  the  Morns  record.- 

A  Yes,  sir.  _  , 

Q  Were  you  an  adherent  of  Governor  Deneen? — A.  No;  I  ha 

never  been  in  his  office  but  one  time  during  the  session. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Governor  Deneen? — A.  No,  sir;  only  the  0 
time  I  went  in  there  to  consult  him  about  a  bill.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Counsel  didn't  ask  you  what  you  went  m  fc 
Is  that  the  only  time  you  met  him?— A.  I  met  him  another  time  < 
the  train  going  to  the  funeral  of  Mr.  Scott. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  175 

Q.  Those  are  the  only  two  times  in  yonr  life,  were  they  not  ? _ A. 

ndiv  iclually  ;  we  talked  in  190 (  as  a  committee — a  labor  representa- 

ive. 

Q.  I  mean  to  have  any  personal  conversation. — A.  Those  are  the 
•nly  two  times  to  my  knowledge  that  I  ever  talked  with  him. 

Q.  A\  hat  were  those  talks  about  ? — A.  I  talked  or  spoke  to  him 
bout  my  bill;  it  must  have  been  in  February. 

Q,.  W  hat  year?  A.  It  might  have  been  the  last  of  March,  possiblv 
n  April.  J 

Q.  Of  what  year? — A.  1909. 

Q.  The  other  talk  was  long  prior  to  that? — A.  The  other  talk  was 
t  the  time  Mr.  Scott  died. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Governor 
)eneen  or  Roger  Sullivan  or  any  other  person  occupying  an  elective 
ffice  or  a  political  office  in  the  city  of  Chicago  or  in  the  State  of  Illi¬ 
nois  or  elsewhere  with  reference  to  the  publication  of  this  story?— A. 
io,  sir;  no  one,  except  those  I  have  mentioned. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  don't  claim  that  he  had  any  conversation  with 
loger  Sullivan. 

The  Witness.  Just  a  moment.  I  tried  to  get  one  man  to  come -in 
member,  and  confess  if  he  would.  He  spoke  to  me  of  his  knowl- 
ige  of  the  affair. 

Q,  You  tried  to  get  another  man  to  go  to  a  man  and  confess? _ A. 

es,  sir;  and  he  talked  with  him,  he  told  me  afterwards. 

Q.  In  a  letter  introduced  by  Judge  Hanecv  yesterday  from  you  to 
ee  O'Neill  Browne,  dated  in  October,  1909,^  you  say,  “The  thought 
£  every  man  is,  life  brings  some  interesting  surprises.  So  I  presume 
e  should  not  be  surprised  at  anything  in  these  wonderful  days.  If 
live  long  enough  I  expect  to  repay  you  every  dollar  you  have  given 
e.  Don  t  be  surprised  in  the  future  at  any  action  I  may  take.” 
Tiat  did  you  have  reference  to? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that,  if  the  committee  please.  He  is 
>ked  to  explain  something  that  he  said  there.  Whatever  that  con- 
iys  is  competent  here,  but  it  is  not  competent  for  him  to  explain 
ie  intent  and  meaning  of  the  language  that  he  used  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  binding  anyone. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  is  seeking  to  bind  somebody  by  the  testimonv 
ven,  and  now  is  trying  to  explain  away  the  fair  intent  and  meaning 

the  language  used  at  that  time  by  giving  some  other  meaning 

■'  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  will  not  spend  any  time  on  that. 

Q.  Mr.  \\  hite,  shortly  after — some  time  after — you  wrote  this  let- 
r  introduced  in  evidence  to  Senator  Lorimer,  did  you  write  a  letter 
'  Air.  Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  date,  about,  as  best  you  can  remember? — A.  I  think  the 
ate  was  February  27,  1910. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  ask  counsel  whether  they  have  that  letter? 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  never  heard  of  it  before,  Mr.  Austrian.  I 
'ink — just  wait  a  minute. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  the  letter  he  inquired  about? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Never  had  any,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Q.  Was  that  letter  sent  by  you  to  Mr.  Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  any  reply  to  it?— A.  No,  sir. 


176  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  state  to  the  committee  that  we  have  asked  t< 
have  Mr.  Browne  summoned  here,  and  if  the  letter  is  produced  bi 
him  this  may  £0  out;  if  not  produced  by  him,  we  will  endeavor  t( 
show  it  is  the  best  evidence  we  have  on  the  subject.  I  want  to  maki 
that  statement  before  I  endeavor  to  get  the  contents  of  that  letter  11 

the  record 

Senator"  Burrows.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  defer  that  until  yoi 
call  Mr.  Browne  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  have  to  call  the  witness  back. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  think,  Mr.  Austrian,  that  you  had  better  wai 

until  Mr.  Browne  is  before  the  committee. 

Q,  Mr.  White,  you  testified  on  cross-examination,  m  response  t 

questions  put  to  you  by  counsel,  that  you  started  as  early  as  Sep 
tember  1909,  to  enter  into  communication  with  a  publishing  house  1 
the  city  of  New  York  with  reference  to  the  publication  of  that  storj 

is  that  correct  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  _  ,, 

Q.  Were  there  -any  communications  had  between  you  and  tnos 

publishing  houses  by  letter,  in  writing?— -A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  papers  I  now  hand  you  and  tell  me  it  tin 
is  a  part  of  the  correspondence  had  upon  that  subject .  B°ok  at  thei 
and  see  whether  they  are  the  ones;  I  will  put  them  back  m  tl 

envelopes  for  you. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  offer  those  m  evidence. 

Senator  Burrows.  Any  objection  to  them? 

Senator  Gamble.  If  they  show  that  he  has  made  efforts  along  t  • 
line,  might  it  not  be  competent  evidence.  The  declarations  of  couns 
bandying  words  back  and  forth  is  not  evidence.  Sometimes  stat 
ments  are  made  that  are  not  made  good  in  the  trial.  I  think  it  wi 
be  time  to  take  this  question  up  when  the  evidence  is  m. 

Senator  Paynter.  My  recollection  is  that  this  witness  testified 
the  fact ;  that  he  offered  this  story  for  sale  before  the  Tribune  w 
approached. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir.  ,.  «. 

Senator  Paynter.  Then  it  is  in  the  record  now  that  he  did  otter 

for  sale  before  he  approached  the  Tribune.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  true.  ,,  • 

Senator  Paynter.  It  seems  to  me,  then,  we  have  all  the  inform 
tion  we  possibly  would  get  on  that  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  make  a  statement  here? 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly.  ,  *  T  t  ti. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Counsel  made  the  statement  that  I  stated  th 

there  was  conspiracy  between  Roger  Sullivan,  Governor  Deneen,  ai 
the  Chicago  Tribune.  I  never  said  that,  and  you  gentlemen  w 
remember  that  I  did  not,  and  I  can  not  allow  it  to  go  unansweri 
because  the  purpose,  I  have  no  doubt,  was  that  it  should  go  out 
publication.  I  never  mentioned  Roger  Sullivan  s  name,  except  to  a 
the  witness  if  he  was  not  a  national  committeeman,  and  it  he  was ir 
a  leader  in  the  house,  and  that  Tippit  faction  was  allied  with  Ro 
Sullivan,  and  he  was  allied  with  Browne.  I  never  said  that  or  a 
thing  from  which  it  could  be  inferred,  and  there  is  nothing  in  < 

record  to  sustain  it.  .  „  .  .  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  now,  if  the  chairman  please  and  the  co 

mittee,  to  offer  this  document  in  evidence. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  original  document  ? 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  177 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object. 

Senator  Burrows.  Objection  is  made. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  that  is  the  same  question  that  you  said  you 
70uld  consider  during  the  noon  recess. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  White,  I  believe  you  stated  that  the  letter  of  October 
4  that  was  shown  to  you  yesterday— do  you  recollect  that  letter?— 
L  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  And  also  some  reference  made  in  the  question  of  counsel  to 
ou  of  a  letter  of  October  24  with  reference  to  procuring  a  position  ? — 
L.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  explain  that  letter?  Will  you  detail  to  the  committee 
3  what  that  letter  referred  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  objected  to. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then  produce  the  letter  of  October  24. 

The  Witness.  It  was  not  October  24.  It  was  in  reply  to  a  letter  I 
ad  written  just  previous  to  October  24. 

J udge  Hanecy.  Do  you  want  us  to  produce  it  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Witness.  Judge  Hanecy  left  the  impression  that  it  was  in 
sply  to  a  letter  I  had  written. 

Q.  Do  you  desire  to  explain  any  answer  you  made  to  Judge  Hanecy 
rith  reference  to  a  letter  of  October  24? 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  letter  would  not  be  in  my  possession;  it  is  in 
our  possession. 

The  Witness.  It  is  a  letter  from  Mr.  Browne  to  me  in  answer  to 
letter  I  had  written  to  him  previous  to  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  a  copy;  you  can  use  that  if  you  desire. 

Q.  Do  you  want  to  look  at  it,  Mr.  White?— A.  Yes;  I  would  like 
)  look  at  it.  [Letter  handed  witness.] 

Q.  What  explanation  do  you  want  to  make? — A.  I  would  like  to 
’k  where  the  letter  is  that  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Browne  relative  to  this 
atter. 

Q.  That  is  what  you  wanted? — A.  That  is  what  I  wanted. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Have  you  that  letter? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Written  just  previous  to  October  24  to  which  this 
a  reply  ? 

The  Witness.  To  which  this  is  a  reply. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  letter  does  not  say  it  replies  to  anything. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir. 

The  Witness.  It  was  in  reply  to  a  letter. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  letter  I  introduced  in  evidence  was  a  letter  bv 
r.  \\  Lite  to  the  Hon.  William  Lorimer. 

The  Witness.  Yes;  that  is  the  question  I  want  to  explain. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  want  that  letter? 

The  Witness.  No;  I  want  the  other  letter.  That  is  a  reply  to  the 
tter  I  wrote  Browne. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  a  letter  from  White  to  Browne  about  Oc¬ 
her  1,  1909,  or  I  have  a  copy  of  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  immaterial.  I  will  recall  the  witness. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  Thomas  Kern,  who  was  referred  to  upon  your 
oss-examination  as  having  been  a  member  of  the  legislature,  and 
i»om  you  asked  on  the  27th  of  May,  1909,  to  hold  up  a  so-called  ten- 
mr  labor  bill  and  said  if  he  would  hold  it  up  you  could  get  some 

70024°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 12 


178  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


money  out  of  it.  Did  you  ever  have  any  such  conversation  witl 

Thomas  Kern? — A.  No,  sir.  #  - 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Thomas  Kern  with  refer 
ence  to  a  ten-hour  labor  bill  at  all,  or  any  other  bill,  in  reference  t< 
holding  it  up? — A.  No,  sir;  not  in  reference  to  holding  up  any  bil 


whatever 

Q.  What  was  your  salary  account  in  the  legislature?  A.  Twi 

thousand  dollars  and  mileage  and  $50  for  postage. 

Q,.  Prior  to  the  15th  day  of  June,  1909,  had  you  drawn  your  entir 

quota  of  salary?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  prior?— A.  I  drew  all  of  my  salary  before  the  las 

of  February,  1909,  as  I  remember  it  now. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  of  your  salary  account  left  on  the  loth  da; 

of  June,  1909? — A.  No,  sir.  My  bank  account  will  show - 

Senator  Burrows.  You  have  answered  the  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  that  is  all 


Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  now  take  a  recess  until 

o’clock.  _  ^  , 

Wednesday,  September  28,  1910—2  o’clock  p.  m. 

Committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  and  the  following  proceec 


ings  were  had : 

Charles  A.  White,  a  witness  heretofore  called,  resumed  the  stan 
for  further  examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  and  testified  as  follows . 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  have  doubt  as  to  the  admissibilit 
of  the  testimony  you  proposed  showing,  Mr.  Austrian,  the  dispositio 
of  money  that  he  made  after  he  claims  to  have  received  this  sum  c 
$1,900.  all  told,  but,  under  the  circumstances,  the  committee  will  alio' 
you  to  show  that,  without  establishing  a  precedent  as  to  what  we  ma 
hold  under  other  conditions.  So  far  as  the  testimony  itself  is  coi 
cerned.  of  course,  the  committee  will  give  such  consideration  to 
as  in  its  judgment  it  deserves. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Certainly;  I  assume  that  applies  to  all  of  the  ev 

dence  that  either  side  may  produce. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes ;  and  I  may  as  well  say  about  your  other  oik 
to  admit  in  evidence  the  original  story  that  he  presented  the  commitfi 
will  have  to  sustain  the  objection ;  it  can  not  be  received. 

Air  Austrian.  May  I  have  leave  to  offer  it  again  when  the  sta 
of  "the  record  will  be  different?  There  will  be  a  different  state  of  tl 
record  if  counsel  pursues  the  theory  that  he  states  he  will. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  will  meet  that  question  when  it  arises. 

O  Mr  White,  immediately  after  the  receipt  of  this  money,  th 
$1  900— we  will  take  the  $1,000  you  say  you  received  first  or  $900  th 
you  received  about  the  16th  or  17th  of  June  at  Chicago  at  the  Brig: 
House— will  you  state  what  disposition  you  made  of  that  mone; 

what  did  you  do  with  it?— A.  I  paid  off  bills - -  . 

Q.  No ;  where  did  you  take  it?  Did  you  put  it  m  your  pocket ?- 
A.  Yes;  I  put  it  in  my  pocket  and  took  it  to  O  Fallon  and  Fast  ^ 


JucUe  Hanecy.  Address  the  committee  so  that  we  can  hear.— A. 
put  it  m  my  pocket — in  my  coat  pocket — and  took  it  back  to  East  >. 
Louis  and  CVFallon.  and  the  day  after  I  got  back  I  begun  to  pay  ( 
some  bills  I  owed  and  some  other  debts  that  I  owed.  I  have  some 

the  receipted  bills  for  that. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  179 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  papers  I  now  hand  you  and  state  whether 
r  not  those  are  the  documents  you  referred  to  just  now  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  assume  that  it  won’t  be  necessary  for  me  to  make 
bjections  to  all  this  as  it  goes  in,  but  it  goes  in  subject  to  the  ruling 
nd  the  doubt  which  the  chairman  expressed. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

The  Witness.  These  are  the  bills  I  paid  off  immediately  after 
rriving  back.  These  bills  were  paid  out  of  some  of  the  money  also. 
Tat  does  not  represent  all  of  the  money  that  was  paid  out. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

The  Witness.  That  is  the  money  I  have  receipts  for,  to  show  there. 
Q.  What  other  moneys  did  you  expend,  pay  out,  or  disburse  in 
ny  manner  whatsoever?  I  want  to  save  time. — A.  I  could  not 
ay  all. 

Q.  Examine  those  [handing  checks  to  witness]  ;  what  are  those  ? — - 
l.  Those  checks  are  checks  that  I  drew  as  a  result  of  a  special 
eposit  made  of  that  money.  My  bank  account  was  exhausted  at 
aat  time,  with  the  exception  of  a  little  more  than  a  dollar,  possibly 
1.80  at  that  time,  and  I  made  a  special  deposit  of  the  money  that 
received  up  here  from  Mr.  Browne  to  cover  those  checks  in"  order 
)  cover  those  small  accounts  by  mailing  checks  out.  The  bank  book 

ill  show  that.  A  memoranda  on  there  calls  for  some  bills - 

Judge  Hanecy.  Are  you  offering  these  papers? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  I  offer  them  in  evidence. 

(Which  said  checks  are  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  1-A.] 

No.  - . 

O’Fallon,  III.,  6/10/1900. 

o  First  National  Bank  : 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Jno.  Fey  $8.48,  eight  48/100  dollars. 

Chas.  A.  White. 

On  the  back  of  said  exhibit  is  the  following  indorsement*. 

Jno.  Fey.  Banner  Bottling  Company,  F.  U.  sec.  &  treas.  Pay  yourselves  or 
•der.  Southern  Commercial  &  Savings  Bank,  St.  Louis,  Mo.  W.  A.  Kammerer, 

ishier. 


[Exhibit  2-A.] 


No.  - . 

O’Fallon,  III.,  6/10/1000. 

a  First  National  Bank  : 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Tri  City  Packing  Co.  $3.54,  three  54/100  dollars. 


Chas.  A.  White. 


And  on  the  back  of  said  exhibit  the  following  indorsement : 

Beebe  Bros.  Pay  to  the  order  of  any  bank  or  banker;  all  prior  indorsements 
la  ran  teed.  June  22.  1000.  Union  Trust  &*  Savings  Bank,  East  St.  Louis,  Ill., 
I'.  Keshner,  cashier. 


[Exhibit  3-A.] 

No.  - . 

O’Fallon,  III.,  6/10/1009 . 

a  First  National  Bank  : 

Pay  to  the  order  of  J.  H.  Herron  $2.66,  two  66/100  dollars. 

Chas.  A.  White. 


180  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


And  on  the  back  of  said  exhibit  the  following  indorsement 


j  ]-j  Herron.  Pay  Illinois  State  Trust  Co.  Bank,  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.,  01 
orrlpr  The  New  Peerless  Bread  Co.  Per  Glenn  Pruett,  secy. 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Ft.  Dearborn  Natl.  Bank,  Chicago,  Ill.,  June  29,  1909 
All  prior  indorsements  guaranteed.  Illinois  State  Trust  Co.  Bank  of  East  St 
Louis,  Ill.  Jas.  E.  Combs,  cashier. 


[Exhibit  4-A.] 

NO.  - 

O’Fallon,  III.,  6/10/1909. 

To  First  National  Bank  : 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Peter  J.  McGann  $12.50,  twelve  and  50/100  dollars. 

Chas.  A.  White. 

And  on  the  back  of  said  exhibit  the  following  indorsement: 

Peter  J.  McGann.  Pay  yourselves  or  order  German  Savings  Institution,  SI 
Louis,  Mo. 


[Exhibit  5-A.] 


No. - . 

O’Fallon,  III.,  6/19/1909. 


To  First  National  Bank: 

pav  to  the  order  of  Suburban  Pharmacy,  $80/100,  80/100  dollars. 

Chas.  A.  White, 


And  on  the  back  of  said  exhibit  being  the  following  indorsement 


Suburban  Pharmacy,  by  Alex.  Woods,  prop.  , 

Pav  to  the  order  of  any  bank  or  banker,  prior  indorsements  guaranteed  Jul. 
1909.'  Mechanics’  American  Nat’l  Bank,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  J.  S.  Calfee,  cashier. 


[Exhibit  6- A.] 


No. 


O’Fallon,  III.,  6/19/1909. 

To  First  National  Bank: 

Pay  to  the  order  of  McGowan  House  $6.50,  six  50/100  dollarK^  ^  White 


And  on  the  back  of  said  exhibit  being  the  following  indorsement 


to  ...g 

McGowan  House.  J.  L.  M.  Pay  to  the  order  of  any  bank  or  banker.  Pri. 


Indorseineiits  guaranteed.'  June  24,  1909.  Mechanics'  American  Natl  Ban 
St.  Louis,  Mo.  J.  s.  Calfee,  cashier. 


[Exhibit  7-A.] 

No. - 

O’Fallon,  III.,  6/19/1909. 

To  First  National  Bank  : 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Jos.  Kinlein,  $3.75,  three  <5/100  dollars.^^  4  White. 

And  on  the  back  of  said  exhibit  being  the  following  indorsemen 

Indepec 


*to  “AVy  "  “Ato 

Pay  Illinois  State  Trust  Co.  Bank,  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.,  or  order. 

Pay  to  the  orde/of  Ft” Dearborn  Nat’l  Bank,  Chicago,  Ill.,  June  23, 1909.  -■ 

of  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.,  Jas.  E.  Combs,  cashier. 


Mr.  Austrian.  (Handing  Judge  Hanecy  papers.) 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  first  and  second  pages  of  these  papers  are 
his  own  handwriting  and  are  simply  his  statement,  or  a  memoranda 
of  things  that  he  says  he  paid  out  and  about  $2o  or  $30  in  checks. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  181 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  will  explain  that.  IIow  much  on  the  receipted 

ills  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  about  $86. 

Mr.  Austrian.  These  checks  are  all  dated  the  19th  of  June. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  just  one  bill  in  this  bundle  of  papers  that 
3  against  Mr.  White,  out  of  all  that  number ;  all  the  others  are  against 
miebody  else. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  will  connect  these. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  just  the  way  they  should  not  go  in. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  doesn't  make  any  difference  who  the  bills  are 
gainst  as  long  as  these  are  bills  that  he  paid. 

The  Witness.  They  are  my  individual  bills. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Under  that  firm  name. 

Senator  Burrows.  How  much  is  the  amount  of  the  bills  paid  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Something  over  $200,  nearly  $300. 

Judge  Hanecy.  $35  in  checks.  There  are  bills  here,  I  think,  aggre- 
ating  $65. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  difference  does  it  make,  the  amount,  if  that  is 
hat  you  paid? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  was  answering  Senator  Burrows,  the  chairman, 
ho  asked  how  much  they  were. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  say  the  checks  amounted  to  $35? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Thirty-five  dollars  and  some  cents. 

Senator  Burroivs.  What  is  the  amount  of  the  bills  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  witness  will  tell  in  a  moment. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  bills  show  $86  in  round  numbers. 

By  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  Mr.  White,  the  papers  which  I  now  hand  you  are  what  you  term 
our  special  deposit,  were  they  not?— A.  Yes;  with  the  exception  of 
oout  a  dollar  or  something  which  I  had  in  the  bank. 

Q.  You  stated  you  made  a  special  deposit  and  these  were  paid  out  of 
le  moneys  that  you  received  from  Browne  June  16  or  17,  1909.  Is 
lat  right? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  with  the  exception  of  these  first  sheets,  first  two  sheets, 
hich  were  in  your  handwriting,  were  the  bills,  or  some  of  them, 
hich  you  paid  out  of  the  money  in  question;  is  that  correct? — A. 
es,  sir:  these  were  some  of  the  bills  that  w'ere  paid  with  that  money. 
Q.  Were  these  bills  obligations  of  your  own  or  some  one’s  else? — ■ 

.  Yes,  sir;  they  were  obligations  of  my  own,  and  we  run  this  ac- 
mnt.  J ohnson  was  out  of  the  business. 

Q.  You  were  the  concern  of  Johnson  &  White? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it 
as  prior  to  that. 

Q.  You  are  the  White,  are  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  offer  these  bills  in  evidence. 

(Which  said  bills  were  and  are  in  the  words  and  figures  following, 

»  wit:) 

[Exhibit  1-B.] 

[Law  office,  Wm.  P.  Launtz,  Metropolitan  Building,  Launtz  Block.] 

East  St.  Louis,  III.,  June  21 ,  190!). 

Received  from  Hon.  C.  A.  White  the  sum  of  eighteen  dollars,  account  rent 
Eice  room  No.  5,  floor  Metropolitan  Building,  Launtz  Block,  for  month  ending 

me  30,  1909. 


182  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Tenants  intending  to  move,  it  is  hereby  understood  and  agreed,  in  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  acceptance  of  this  rent,  must  give  owner  thirty  days’  notice  of  such 
intention  at  end  of  previous  month  or  pay  a  month’s  rent. 


All  rents  payable  in  advance. 


Wm.  P.  Launtz,  Owner. 


[Exhibit  2-B.] 


To  The  East  Side  Printing  Company,  Dr., 
Louis,  Ill. 


19-21  North  Third  street,  East  St. 

May  24/09. 


Johnson  &  White  Realty  Co. 

March  30 _ 2,000  cards - 

30 _ 1,000  letter  heads - 

30 _ 1,000  ragland  envelopes 

30 _ 1,000  rent  signs - 

April  8 _ 5,000  dodgers - 

20 _ 1,000  cards,  J.  E.  White 


Paid  June  18/09. 


$3.  25 
3.  50 
2.50 
4.10 
8.00 
2.  25 


23.60 

House. 


[Exhibit  3-B.] 

rPhones  Bell  E.  540,  Kinloch  S.  Clair  1319.  St.  Louis  Office,  room  614  Victoria  Building, 
[unones,  cen  gth  &  Locust  Sts.  Phone,  Kinloch  Central  1493.] 

East  St.  Louis,  III.,  6/11/1909. 

M.  Nat.  Claim  &  Adj.  Co.,  debtor  to  M.  E.  Montgomery  Advertising  Company. 


display  advertising  signs. 

For  advertising  space,  as  per  contract  for  month  of 

Balance  per  bill - 


$10.  5( 


Paid. 


M.  E.  Montgomery  &  Co. 
Per  John  Dorman,  6/19/09. 


[Exhibit  4-B.] 


and  triplicating  carbon  books.] 


Order  No. - .  Terms - . 

Sold  to  Johnson  White  It.  E.  Co. 

1  300  p.  journal,  half  conn - 

1  500  p.  acct.  ledger - 

1  D.  E.  small  ledger - 

3  D.  E.  sheet  flat  opening  ledger— 


East  St.  Louis,  April  21,  1909. 


__  2.7 
__  2.7 
__  .3 

__  5.2 


31.1 


Paid  6/19/1909. 


H.  L.  George. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  183 


[Exhibit  5-B.] 

To  the  East  Side  Printing  Company,  Dr.,  19-21  North  Third  street,  East  St. 
ouis,  Ill. 

[ational  Claim  Adjustment  Co. 

May  2  If/ 09. 


pril  7,  2.000  envelopes -  4.  25 

2,000  cards _ : _  7.  00 

1,000  large  letter  hds.,  with  name;  10,000  large  letter  heads, 

without  name _  8.  50 

16.  1,000  letter  heads,  small  size _  3.00 

16.  2,000  second  sheets _  2.  80 


Paid  June  12/09. 


$25.  55 
House. 


Mr.  Austrian.  And  these  papers,  which  I  show  you,  what  are 
hese  ? — A.  Memoranda  I  made  at  the  time.  I  paid  off  a  good  many 
ebts  there. 

Q.  Are  those  memoranda  correct,  and  do  they  truthfully  disclose 
lie  amounts  of  money  you  paid  to  those  persons  named  on  those 
lemoranda,  respectively  ? — A.  Yes. 


ioom__. 

ressing 

jaund— 


[Exhibit  1-C.] 


July  5,  1909. 

_ $10.20 

_  3. 75 

_  2. 68 


$16.  43 


Received  from  Chas  A.  White  sixteen  and 
d  date. 


$16.43. 


43/100  dollars  in  full  for  hotel  bill 


A.  D.  Calkins. 


[Exhibit  2-C.] 

[Law  Office,  Wm.  P.  I.auntz,  Metropolitan  Building,  Launtz  Block.] 

East  St.  Louis,  III,  July  7,  1909. 

Received  of  Hon.  C.  A.  White  the  sum  of  eighteen  dollars,  account  rent 
ffice  room  No.  5,  floor  Metropolitan  Building,  Launtz  Block,  for  month  ending 

uly  31,  1909. 

Tenants  intending  to  move,  it  is  hereby  understood  and  agreed,  in  considera- 
ion  of  the  acceptance  of  this  rent,  must  give  owner  thirty  days’  notice  of  such 
atention  at  end  of  previous  month  or  pay  a  month’s  rent. 

All  rents  payable  in  advance. 

Wm.  P.  Launtz, 

Owner. 


By  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  What  memoranda  are  you  referring  to? — A.  This  is  the  one. 

Q.  Oh,  it  is  dated  June  i9,  isn’t  it? — A.  June  19,  this  one  here 
overs  the  checks  that  are  drawn  there  that  I  made  a  notation  of  at 
he  time,  and  it  shows  a  balance  in  the  bank  of  $1.80. 


184  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  What  is  the  other  memoranda  which  you  made? — A.  This 
showed  that  I  paid  Henry  L.  George  $11.10  cash,  The  East  Side 
Printing  Company  $49.15. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Those  are  the  bills  that  he  is  now  repeating  the 
second  time. 

The  Witness.  Not  altogether,  Mr.  Hanecy. 

By  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  Bead  those  that  are  not  bills. — A.  I  paid  my  stenographer,  Miss 
Mary  Vandever,  back  wages,  $50.50;  I  paid  Otis  Yarbrough  $50. 

Q.  The  two  items,  Mary  Yandever  and  Otis  Yarbrough,  are  not 
included  in  those  bills,  are  they? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  received  this  money  and  went  to  O’Fallon  and  then 
to  East  St.  Louis,  did  you  exhibit  this  money  to  anyone?— A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  To  whom? — A.  It  was  exhibited  in  the  presence  of  Otis  Yar¬ 
brough,  Mr.  John  Dennis,  Miss  Mary  Yandever.  It  was  placed  on 
deposit  over  night  in  care  of  the  Grand  Leader  department  store 
through  Mr.  Kirkpatrick. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit  that  that  does  not  come  within  the  offer 
of  counsel  that  was  considered  by  the  honorable  committee  this  morn¬ 
ing,  but  does  come  specifically  within  the  former  ruling  of  this  com¬ 
mittee,  and  I  move  so  far  as  it  has  gone  in  relation  to  this  that  it  be 
stricken  out. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Couldn’t  I  show  that  he  made  a  deposit  on  the  day 
after  he  received  this  money,  if  I  show  that  he  made  a  deposit  of 
$850  on  the  day  after  receiving  it  ?  Can’t  I  show  that  he  put  it  in 
the  custody  of  a  third  person  the  day  after  he  received  it? 

Senator  Gamble.  The  understanding  I  had  of  the  ruling  was  as 
to  the  disposition  of  the  bills. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  interpose  another  question;  that  is  the  first  time 
that  question  has  been  raised  in  this  case. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No.  They  raised  it  here  yesterday  and  the  com¬ 
mittee  ruled  on  it  very  specifically  and  said  he  could  not  put  it  in 
and  I  think  that  is  the  understanding  of  this  honorable  committee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  never  has  been  a  case  anywhere  that  holds 
that  where  I  show  that  a  witness  testified  that  he  got  $850  under  tin 
same  circumstances  as  here,  that  he  would  not  be  permitted  to  testif} 
that  he  deposited  it  in  a  bank  as  corroborating  his  testimony. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  think  the  conclusion  arises  in  the  use  of  tin 
word  u  corroboration.”  It  might  be  a  part  of  the  same  transaction 
but  a  different  rule  applies  as  to  the  admission  of  that  class  of  testi 
mony  from  testimony  that  is  offered  in  corroboration.  This  witness 
can  not  corroborate  his  own  testimony ;  he  may  testify  as  to  anothei 
transaction  and  let  the  testimony  stand  for  what  it  is  worth. 

Judge  Hanecy.  As  to  res  gestrn  there  is  just  a  part  of  the  evidence 
that  it  admissible  as  part  of  the  res  gestrn  or  as  corroboration,  anc 
the  authorities  cited  are  exactly  in  point  that  where  a  woman  chargee 
with  bribery  has  made  a  payment  of  $500,  and  they  attempt  to  show 
and  did  show,  that  $450  was  drawn  from  the  bank,  the  court  of  las 
resort  reversed  the  conviction  on  that  ground  alone,  and  a  number  o 
others.  They  hold  that  where  things  were  done  immediately  afte; 
getting  the  money  it  was  a  part  of  the  res  gestae  and  that  is  the  doc 
trine.  Senator  Heyburn,  that  I  refer  to.  That  is  one  of  the  classe: 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  185 

)f  evidence  that  is  admissible  in  certain  cases,  but  that  is  not  this 
:ase.  This  is  not  a  part  of  the  res  gestae.  This  is  something  that 
ook  place  a  long  time  after  he  is  said  to  have  obtained  the  money. 
Mr.  Austrian.  How  long  after;  the  next  day  after  he  testified? 
Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  he  got  to  his  home  the  next  day. 

The  Witness.  I  got  to  my  home  the  next  day. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  witness  state  if  he  made  a  deposit  of  the 
noney. 

The  Witness.  I  made  a  deposit  in  the  Grand  Leader,  not  of  record 
ait  with  the  cashier. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Where  did  you  make  that  deposit? — A.  In  the 
irand  Leader. 

Q.  What  is  the  Grand  Leader? — A.  It  is  a  department  store;  the 
ashier  put  it  away  until  the  next  day,  the  following  day. 

Q.  How  much  deposit  did  you  make  there? — A.  About  $800. 
Senator  Burrows.  How  much  did  you  deposit,  did  you  say? — A. 
Tout  $800. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  know  how  much  it  was  ? — A.  I  think  it 
ras  $800. 

Senator  Burrows.  Eight  hundred  dollars? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Who  was  the  individual  who  received  the 
loney ? — A.  The  man  who  took  me  to  the  cashier;  his  name  was 
Tomas  P.  Kirkpatrick.  I  met  the  other  man,  was  introduced  to 
im,  but  I  forget  his  name. 

Senator  Burrows.  Who  received  the  money? — A.  Well,  I  can’t 
ecall  his  name. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  don’t  know  who  it  was? — A.  No,  sir;  I 
m’t  recall  his  name.  Mr.  Kirkpatrick  may  tell  you;  he  knows  the 

ashier. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  had  a  bank  account,  at  that  time  in  O’Fal- 
>n? — A.  I  had. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Are  you  examining  the  witness? 

Senator  Burrows.  Wait  just  a  moment. 

Q.  That  was  a  special  deposit  with  him? — A.  Yes;  to  be  left 
vernight. 

Q.  To  be  left  overnight? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Of  $800? — A.  I  think  it  was  $800. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  date? — A.  This  must  have  been  on  the 
ight  of  the  18th,  the  afternoon  of  the  18th,  possibly  about  4  o’clock. 
Judge  Hanecy.  The  18th  of  what? — A.  June,  1909. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  other  items  evidenced  by  the  three  bills,  did 
ley  come  out,  so  far  as  you  know,  from  this  money? 

Senator  Burrows.  Out  of  what  money? 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  are  only  talking  about  the  $1,000. 

A.  These  two  bills  here  came  out  of  that  amount  and  this  bill. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  These  two  bills,  referring  to  the  bill  of  July  7  and  one  of  July 
.  1909;  it  is  receipted,  signed  by  William  T.  Launtz. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Is  that  the  rent  bill? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  assume  it  is  the  rent  bill.  The  other  one  is  a 
‘ceipt  from  Calkins  dated  July  5,  1909,  for  hotel  bills  to  date, 
hese  two  came  out  of  that  fund,  did  they? — A.  Yes. 


186  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


(Which  bills  were  heretofore  received  in  evidence  as  exhibits 

“  1-C  ”  and  “  2-C.”)  • 

Senator  Burrows.  How  much  are  those  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  aggregate  something  like  $40. 

The  Witness.  Thirty-five  dollars.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Before  you  proceed,  those  better  be  read  mt( 

the  record. 

Judge  Hanecy.  They  ought  to  be  copied  into  the  record  by  some 
body,  so  that  hereafter  when  this  honorable  committee  or  their  as 
sociates  want  this  record  they  won’t  be  left  in  the  dark. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  official  stenographer  has  got  them  for  the  pur 
pose  of  copying  them  into  the  record. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Are  they  to  be  copied  or  compared? 

Senator  Burrows.  Copied  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  White,  what  other  disposition  did  you  mak 
of  the  thousand  dollars? — A.  I  paid- 


Q,  mat  disposition  did  you  make  of  the  $100  received  in  Spring 
field? — A.  Used  it  in  paying  expenses  in  East  St.  Louis,  my  busi 
ness  there  which  I  had  practically  lost  all  .of  my  money  in ;  m 
salary  money,  except  my  expenses  in  the  legislature,  my  expense 

there  and  otherwise.  ,  » 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  gifts  or  anything  of  that  sort  out  ot  tm 

fund  to  anyone? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

O.  If  so",  to  whom? — A.  I  went  down  home  to  Tennessee  to  m 
parents  along  about  the  last  of  June.  I  took  Otis  Yarborough  wit 
me;  paid  his  expenses  down  there  and  back.  I  gave  my  mother 
$50  bill  and  my  father  a  $50  bill,  and  I  presented  my  mother  wit 
a  bed  I  bought,  costing  thirty-seven  and  something  complete,  pui 

chased  at  the  Sterkey  Furniture  Company. 

Q  mere?— A.  At  Knoxville,  Tenn.,  the  Sterkey  Furniture  Con 
pany ;  it  was  a  complete  bed— that  is,  bed,  mattress,  and  what  furnisl 

ings  went  with  it — all  the  furnishings  with  it. 

q.  Yes. _ A.  I  gave  Otis  Yarborough  there  money  to  pay  his  e: 

penses  while  he  was  there. 

Q.  And  other  expenditures  of  that  sort  ? — A.  Y  es. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Oh,  let  him  testify.  . 

The  Witness.  I  am  going  to  tell.  I  spent  a  great  deal  of  mom 
in  there.  I  haven’t  been  there  for  several  years,  and  I  spent  morn 
in  numerous  ways,  and  I  made  some  small  presents  One  of  n 
younger  brothers  I  gave  a  little  money  to,  and  so  forth,  and  then 

think  there  was- 


Mr.  Austrian.  Keep  your  voice  up. 

A.  I  am  trying  to  refresh  my  memory  on  some  moie  ot  tne 

PQ  AH  right.  We  will  not  take  the  time  now.  At  the  time  y 
received  the  $900,  concerning  which  you  testified  on  your  direct  e 
amination,  in  St.  Louis  from  Robert  E.  Wilson  in  July,  had  y, 
theretofore  expended,  paid  out,  and  disbursed  the  thousand  dolls 
which  you  had  received  from  Browne  in  Springfield  and  Chica; 
during  the  month  of  J une  ?  A..  Y  es,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  To  that  I  object. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  witness  answer. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  187 

Mr.  Austrian.  State  what  else  you  expended  this  money  for. — A. 
I  gave  money  down  there  to  some  of  my  many  friends  I  had  bor- 
owed  a  little  money  from.  I  think  I  had  borrowed  some - 

Q.  Can  you  state  who  your  friends  are  ? — A.  I  had  borrowed  some 
rom  Sidney  Yarborough;  I  paid  him  back. 

Q.  You  have  stated - 

Senator  Burrows.  How  much  was  that? — A.  I  think  I  got  some- 
vdiere  in  the  neighborhood  of  $30  from  him. 

Q.  Can’t  you  tell  how  much  it  was  ? — A.  I  can’t  tell  definitely ;  I 
mow  Sidney  loaned  me  $30  at  one  time,  and  I  am  not  positive 
whether  I  paid  it  back  or  not  before  I  got  this  money. 

Q.  Then  you  don’t  know  whether  you  paid  that  $30  out  of  this 
und? — A.  No,  sir;  but  I  know  I  paid  him. 

Q.  You  paid  him  some? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  know  that  he  left  shortly 
fter  he  got  this  money  for  South  Dakota. 

Q.  Where  else  did  you  spend  any? — A.  I  gave  a  young  man  by 
he  name  of  John  Davidson,  or  Jack  Davidson,  we  called  him  there, 
ome  money;  I  think  I  gave  him  $20.  He  had  been  assisting  me 
round  in  the  work,  and  I  owed  it  to  him. 

Q.  Who  did  you  give  it  to? — A.  Jack  Davidson,  or  John  H.  David- 
on,  I  think  his  initials  are,  and  a  man  by  the  name  of  Dan  Evans; 

gave  him  money  two  or  three  times. 

Senator  Burrows.  How  much? — A.  From  $2  to  $5.  I  gave  him 
10  or  $12  in  small  amounts.  He  had  been  working  for  me,  and  I 
hink  that  I  was  exhausted  on  that  money  I  had  got  from  the  Lori- 
ler  sources  by  that  time ;  I  had  spent  it.  I  think  there  were  some 
xpenses  beside  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Go  on. — A.  That  is  about  all  that  I  can  recall  in 
hat  way. 

Q.  Did  you  pay  your  living  expenses  out  of  it  at  that  time? — A. 
"es,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you,  Mr.  White,  stated  all  that  you  remember  of  these 
xpenditures? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  White,  having  stated  all  that  you  remember  of  these 
xpenditures,  will  you  state  whether  or  not,  to  the  best  of  your  recol- 
iction,  at  the  time  that  you  received  the  money  from  Wilson  in  St. 
iouis,  $900,  the  thousand  dollars  had  been  expended? — A.  Yes,  sir; 

was  practically  out  of  money  when  I  got  that  money  from  Mr. 
Wilson. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  the  committee  what  disposition — that  was 
i  July? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  July,  what  date? — A.  July  15,  1909. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  committee  the  disbursement  and  disposition 
hat  you  made  of  the  $900?— A.  Well,  I  had  small  accounts  to  pay 
ff  in  the  office  there  that  had  accumulated ;  some  rent,  and  I  hadn’t 
losed  that  business  up  there  until  after  I  had  received  that  money, 
'hen  a  brother  of  mine  and  a  cousin  of  mine  came  up  here  with  me 
rom  down  home — that  is,  my  home — my  native  home  in  Tennessee. 

paid  their  expenses  to  Chicago  and  kept  them  up  here  for  more 
han  a  week;  gave  them  money  while  they  were  here,  and  I  also  gave 
>tis  Yarborough — he  wanted  to  start  to  work — I  gave  him  $50  to  come 
3  Chicago  and  go  to  work,  and  I  spent  a  great  deal  of  money  in  com- 
any  with  Browne  in  trips  on  the  lake  and  here  in  Chicago  together; 
re  were  here  a  good  deal. 


188  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Are  those  the  trips  referred  to  in  the  letter  from  Browne  tc 
you  under  date  of  September  9  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  those  trips  last?— A.  Well,  we  were  together  ir 
the  neighborhood  of  two  weeks.  Made  three  trips  across  the  lake  anc 
back.  Went  to  St.  Joe  twice,  and  to  Muskegon. 

Q,  How  long  were  you  with  him  in  and  about  Chicago  on  thost 
trips? — A.  I  should  judge  we  were  together  in  the  neighborhood  o: 
twTo  weeks. 

Q,  And  how  much  would  you  say  you  disposed  of  while  you  wer< 
with  Browne  in  August  and  September,  prior  to  September  9,  during 
those  junkets?— A.  Well,  the  best  way  that  I  can  tell  that  is,  when  1 
came  to  Chicago  and  met  Browne  I  had  about  $550  with  me,  anc 
I  had  spent  all  of  my  money — well,  I  hadn't  spent  all;  I  had  loanee 
Browne  $220  of  that  money,  and  then  I  wanted  to  pay  my  hote 
bill  when  I  got  ready  to  leave  here,  and  I  didn’t  have  enough  monei 
to  do  it  and  Browne  gave  me  back  $20,  so  that  I  would  have  enougl 
to  spare;  he  gave  me  back  $20  to  settle  the  hotel  bill.  So  the  trip; 
cost  me  in  the  neighborhood  of  $300,  but  a  week  or  so  following  tha 
Browne  sent  the  other  $200  to  Chicago  by  Mike  Gibbon. 

Q.  Who  was  Mike  Gibbon?— A.  He  was  Mr.  Browne’s  stenogra 

pher  and  secretary. 

Q.  And  still  is  Mr.  Browne’s  stenographer? — A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Was  at  the  last  session?— A.  He  was  at  the  last  session,  so  I  wa 
told ;  he  was  while  I  was  there. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  mean  session  of  the  legislature,  and  not  o 
this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Of  the  legislature.  Proceed  Mr.  White. 

A.  Then  I  came  here,  and  when  I  came  up  here  I  got  the  $200,  ant 
there  was  a  man  named  Will  Gray  that  come  up  here  from  St.  Loui 
with  me.  Gray  and  I  stayed  around  here  for  a  week  or  so  and  w 
spent  money  freely.  Gray  didn’t  have  any  money  to  speak  of;  h 
had  got  out  of  employment  in  St.  Louis  and  came  up  here. 

Q.  You  spent  the  money? — A.  We  spent  the  money. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  what  he  has  testified  to. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Becross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  How  many  trips  did  you  make  on  the  boat  during  the  tw 
weeks;  you  refer  to  the  two  trips  that  you  made  across  the  lake  t 
Michigan— to  Muskegon  and  St.  Joe  and  Kalamazoo,  Mich.  I 

Senator  Burrows.  He  didn’t  say  Kalamazoo ;  he  said  Muskegon. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  the  other  places  you  mentioned,  Muskc 
gon  ? — A.  We  made  two  trips  to  St.  Joe  and  one  trip  to  Muskegoi 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  at  St.  Joe  the  first  trip?— A.  The  firs 
trip  we  went  over  in  the  morning,  Sunday  morning,  and  left  in  th 
afternoon,  and  left  again  Sunday  night  and  reached  there  Monda 
morning,  and  left  there  Monday  night,  and  then  Tuesday  night  y 
went — it  was  either  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  night,  I  am  not  positiv 

about  that — we  went  to  Muskegon. 

Q.  I  don’t  care  about  the  time  exactly.— A.  We  went  to  Muskego 
and  stayed  over  there  to  the  following  day  and  then  left  there  th 
following  day — the  following  night — and  came  back ;  spent  one  da 

in  Muskegon.  .  „ 

Q.  You  went  on  the  boat  each  of  the  three  trips  i— A.  1  es,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  189 

Q.  The  fare  over  there  was  50  cents,  and  the  fare  back  was  50 
ents  too,  was  not  it  ? — A.  I  don't  remember  what  the  fare  was  at 
he  time. 

Q.  It  is  25  cents  in  the  summer  time,  but  I  was  giving  you  the 
arger  amount;  that  is  right?— A.  I  don't  remember  what  the  fare 
7as;  we  had  parlor  rooms  on  the  boat. 

Q.  1  ou  did  not  pay  the  fare  either  going  or  coming  on  either  of 
hose  trips,  did  you?— A.  I  bought  the  tickets,  I  think,  on  one  of  the 
rips. 

Q.  Didn’t  Browne  give  you  the  money ;  didn’t  Browne  pay  the 
xpenses  on  each  one  of  the  trips,  the  fare  and  the  other  expenses? — 
l.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  about  that  ?— A.  Sure. 

Q-  Be  kind  enough  to  tell  this  committee  what  you  paid  on  those 
rips. — A.  I  paid  a  good  deal  of  money. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell  what  you  spent;  any  one  sum 
lat  you  spent? — A.  I  could  not  itemize  all  those  little  expenses,  Mr. 

fanecy. 

Q.  Tell  anything  you  spent?— A.  We  spent  money  for  refresh- 

lents. 

Q.  I  didn't  ask  you  what  you  spent  it  for,  but  what  you  spent  of 
our  money  ? — A.  I  spent  money  for  refreshments. 

Q.  Hoav  much  ? — A.  I  could  not  recall  those  amounts  entirely. 

Q.  That  is  all  I  want ;  you  can't  recall  any  one  item  ? — A.  I  can’t 

3call. 

Q.  Who  was  in  that  party;  that  is,  I  mean  there  was — I  will  with- 
raw  that.  There  was  in  that  party  you  and  Mr.  Browne,  on  how 
lany  of  those  trips? — A.  On  all  the  trips. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Zentner  there  ? — A.  He  was  on  the  first  trip  to  St,  Joe 
ii  Sunday  morning,  and  left  there  Sunday  afternoon  and  came  back, 
ad  he  went  with  us  on  the  trip  with  us  to  Muskegon. 

Q.  So  you,  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  and  Fred  Zentner  were  on  two 

f  the  trips,  one  to  St.  Joe  and  one  to  Muskegon  and  back  again? _ A. 

es,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  and  Browne  were  on  the  other  trip  to  St.  Joe  and 
ick? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  isn't  it  a  fact  that  Browne  paid  all  of  the  expenses,  fare 
lere  and  back,  and  all  of  the  expenses  while  on  the  trip  on  the  boat 
•  boats  and  at  St.  Joe  and  at  Muskegon? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Until  you  got  back? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  can’t  name  an  item  of  expense  that  you  ever  paid  to 
lybody  on  any  one  of  those  three  trips? — A.  Now,  Mr.  Hanecv,  I 
ill  give  the  bell  boys’  names,  if  you  want  to  call  them  in  and  “ask 
lem  who  bought  refreshments,  etc.;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  T  am  not  asking  for  bell  boys,  unless  you  are  of  that  kind. 

Q.  (Last  question  read.) — A.  I  can’t  name  them  absolutely.  I 
n't  itemize  all  of  those  things,  Mr.  Chairman,  because  it  was  money 
>ent  freely,  promiscuously. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anything  else? 

Judge  Hanecy.  While  you  were  in  Tennessee,  and  when  you  sav 
»u  gave  your  father  $50  and  your  mother  $50,  you  stopped  at  your 
-Iks’  house,  didn’t  you? — A.  Well,  there  is  a  quite  a  family  there  at 

>me,  and  we  stopped  at  the  hotel — made  our  stopping  place  there  at 

orht 


190  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  You  slept  where  ?— A.  At  the  Stratford  Hotel. 

Q.  You  got  your  meals  at  your  fathers  and  mothers.  A.  JNo, 

not  all  of  them.  „  .  ___  ,  ,  ,  ,, 

0  How  long  did  you  stop  there? — A.  We  had  a  room  at  the 

Stratford  Hotel,  two  rooms  there  all  of  the  time  that  we  were  there 
Q.  How  long? — A.  I  don’t  know — about  eight  days,  or  something 

like ’that,  or  maybe  a  little  longer.  e9  A 

Q.  Didn’t  you  testify  in  the  other  case  that  it  was  three  days  s  A 

Where?  . 

Q.  That  you  stopped  in  the  town  where  your  father  and  mothe: 

lived  at  that  time,  at  the  Stratford  Hotel?— A.  No. 

O.  You  didn’t?— A.  I  don’t  think  I  mentioned  any  specific  time 
I  don’t  know  just  how  many  days  it  was;  I  stated  I  didn’t  remembe: 

the  exact  number  of  days.  *  xxt  n  T  j  u 

Q.  Why  do  you  think  it  was  eight  days? — A.  Well,  I  dont  re 

member  now ;  you  can  ask  the  people  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  much  you  paid  the  Stratfoid  Hote 

people? — A.  The  receipt  here  shows. 

Q.  That  is  one  of  these  bills  here?— A.  Tes. 

q  Then  it  should  not  be  counted  in  twice?— A.  That  bill  wa 

counted  in  as  a  part  of  the  first  money. 

Q  Then  you  went  down  there — I  will  withdraw  that  and  Oti 

Yarbrough  went  with  you?— A.  Yes.  . 

O  Otis  Yarbrough  was  the  man  that  you  got  a  job  for  in  one  o 
the  state  departments  while  you  were  a  member  of  the  legislature . 
\  Through  Mr.  Browne  I  had  him  a  position. 

'  O  And  he  obtained  a  salary  of  what  amount?— A.  Well,  I  don 
know ;  I  think  it  was  $2  a  day ;  I  would  not  be  positive  about  that. 

O.  Wasn’t  it  $4?— A.  I  think  it  was  $2  a  day.  I  looked  over  tl 
li<?t  afterwards,  and  if  I  remember  rightly  it  was  $2  a  day. 

Q  And  that  continued  up  to  the  4th  of  June?-A  I  don’t  thin 
it  did.  no;  I  think  they  dispensed  with  the  appointees  befoie  tr 

leQSlTda ya?r°t™tefore?— A.  Some  time  before  that;  no  I  won 
be  positive  about  the  exact  date;  it  might  have  been  a  week  beta 

or  two  weeks :  I  would  not  be  positive. 

O  Otis  Yarbrough  went  down  with  you  to  your  home  town  ai 

worked  in  the  real  estate  business,  did  he?— A.  Well,  he  help* 

31  Qm You6 w^rin1  the’ real  estate  business  and  had  a  partner  the 

at  O’Fallon? — A.  Yes;  at  East  St.  Louis. 

O.  Did  you  have  a  real  estate  office  at  O’Fallon,  too .  A.  No. 

O  You  were  doing  business  there  all  the  time,  even  while  y< 
were  in  the  legislature ;  your  partner  was  attending  to  the  busme 
in  East  St.  Louis? — A.  Well,  we  started  that  business  m  March;  n 

all  the  time ;  I  can’t  answer  in  that  way. 

O  From  March  up  to  the  4th  of  June?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

O  Now  you  say  that  you  gave  Sid  Y  arbrough  about  $30 ;  wb 
die?  you  give  Sy  Yarbrough  $30?-A.  That  is  after  I  got  t 

money  from  Mr.  Browne.  ,  , 

O.  'Tell  us  by  the  calendar - A.  I  can’t  give  the  date. 

Q  - approximately  the  date. — A.  It  was,  I  should 

4,1  o-i. J Qrmfh  Tlnlrntn  nftpr  th: 


l)  - appioxinid  IP1V  lltc  vta  IV.  -M-v  ■  ,  Jni  P 

fore’ I  went  home;  Sidney  left  and  went  to  South  Dakota  after  th: 
shortly  afterwards. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  191 

Q.  Reason  it  out  and  give  the  date  as  nearly  as  you  can. — A.  I 
vill  figure  on  it;  it  was  near  the  last  of  June. 

Q.  Near  the  last  of  June? — A.  That  is  the  way  I  would  esti- 
nate  it. 

Q.  Davidson — do  you  know  when  you  gave  the  check  to  John  or 
roe  Davidson  of  $20,  or  any  other  sum  of  money? — A.  No;  I  can’t 
ecall  the  date;  Mr.  Davidson  might  be  able  to  fix  that.  I  want  to 
tate  here  it  might  have  been  possible  I  gave  him  that  $20;  in  cor- 
ecting  my  testimony,  if  there  is  a  mistake,  now,  it  might  be  even 
tossible  I  gave  that  $20  after  I  got  the  $900  from  Wilson  in  St, 
iouis ;  that  might  be  possible,  but  I  am  quite  sure  I  gave  him  $20. 

Q.  When  was  it? — A.  I  can’t  fix  the  date  more  positively;  after 
got  the  money  in  Chicago,  shortly  after  that,  or  after  I  sot  the 
mney  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  You  say  you  gave  Dan  Evans  $8  or  $10  in  sums  of  $2  or  $3?— 

L.  Yes. 

Q.  When? — A.  At  different  intervals. 

Q.  You  say  you  paid  the  expenses  of  yourself  and  Otis  Yarbrough 
i  going  down  to  your  home  in  Tennessee? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  rode  on  a  pass,  didn’t  you — you  and  Yarbrough — down 
3  Cairo? — A.  No,  sir;  we  took  the  Southern  Railway  to  St,  Louis, 
nd  I  bought  two  tickets  and  paid  $16  each,  $32  for  two  tickets,  to 
laryville,  Tenn. ;  we  got  summer  rates  on  them,  and  had  a  Pullman 
leeper  going  down. 

Q.  So  you  paid  $16  for  round  trip  down  to  your  home  and  back 
gain?— A.  Thirty-two  dollars  for  the  two  of  us. 

Q.  Did  you  pay  for  Yarbrough’s  ticket? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  about  that? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  didn’t  pay  any  bills  in  your  home  town  in  Tennessee, 
id  you? — A.  No  bills,  except  for  a  present  that  I  gave  to  my  mother. 
Q.  You  didn’t  pay  any  debts  you  owed  ?— A.  I  don’t  know ;  there 
5  a  question  whether  I  owed  them  or  not. 

Q.  You  didn’t  owe  a  tailor’s  bill  down  there,  did  you? — A.  There 
5  a  question  I  don’t  think  it  is  right  for  me  to  answer;  there  is  a 
uestion  as  to  whether  I  owed  them  or  not. 

Q.  You  didn’t  pay  it? 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  you  pay  any  bills?— A.  I  didn’t  pay  any 

ills. 

Q.  When  proceedings  were  begun  against  you  for  the  collection  of 
iat  bill  you  hurriedly  left  the  town,  didn’t  you  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that  as  immaterial.  We  will  try  the 
lerits  of  that  lawsuit,  as  to  the  tailor  bill,  and  if  he  hurriedly  left 
ie  town,  if  he  wants  to;  I  haven’t  any  objection,  if  you  permit 
■s  to  go  into  the  merits  of  this  controversy,  whether  or  not  this  man 
■ft  the  town  or  not. 

Judge  IIanecy.  I  think  it  is  all  collateral. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  not  talking  about  anything  but  this,  if  the 
^mmittee  desires  to  hear  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  does  not  desire  to  hear  any- 
fing  further  than  what  the  witness  has  stated — that  he  was  not 
alebted  to  this  party  and  he  did  not  pay  anything. 

The  Witness.  And  I  stated  there  was  a  question  about  that  and 
0  had  the  documents  to  show  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  didn’t  pay  any  bills? — A.  I  paid  no  bills. 


192  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judo-e  Hanecy.  The  total  amount  of  all  of  these  items,  so  far  as 
you  can  enumerate  them,  giving  the  largest  amounts,  aggregates 

$471.50;  is  that  right?  .  .  J  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object,  if  you  call  for  the  items,  that  is  a  questioi 

of  simple  addition.  _  -  ,  T  v. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  does  not  change  the  fact  that  1  have  th 

right  to  ask  him ;  I  am  not  bound  by  his  conclusions.  . 

Q.  I  said  the  amount  you  have  given,  the  items  giving  you  th< 
benefit  of  the  largest  amounts ;  of  course,  if  I  am  bound  by  his  state 
ment  and  not  permitted  to  cross-examine,  and  I  would  be  bound  b; 
his  answers,  then  I  will  suspend  further  cross-examination  on  tha 
question  and  I  don’t  care  to  go  any  further. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  read  the  question  ? 

(Question  read  by  reporter.) 

Senator  Burrows.  You  can  answer  the  question. 

A.  I  would  not  answer  that  positively  at  all  until  I  have  addet 


them  up.  •  ,  .  ~  ,  • 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  care  to  catch  you  on  any  specific  question.- 

A.  If  Tt  figures  up  the  amount  you  have  stated,  I  presume  it  is. 

Q.  The  Trills  you  have  presented  here,  one  of  them  is  a  receip 
for  $18 ;  that  is,  for  the  rent  of  your  real  estate  office,  isn’t  it,  l 
East  St.  Louis?— A.  Yes;  that  is  rent  of  the  office. 

Q.  For  which  your  firm  was  liable? — A.  Our  firm? 
q]  Yes.— A.  No;  that  is  rent  I  presume  I  owed. 

Q.  You  had  a  firm?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  had  a  partner?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  was,  however,  a  partnership  business ?— A.  Yes. 

O.  And  the  bill  of  twenty-three  sixty,  of  the  East  Side  Prmtm 
Company  is  against  Johnson  &  White  Kealty  Company;  that 
right,  isn’t  it?— A.  That  was  against  me;  it  is  made  that  way,  bi 
it  was  my  bill.  Johnson  had  left  and  I  paid  the  expenses. 

O.  It  was  against  the  Johnson  &  White  Kealty  Company  (  i 
That  is  the  way  the  bill  was  made,  but  it  belonged  to  me. 

O  Was  your  real  estate  firm  or  business  corporation  known  : 
the" Johnson  &  White  Realty  Company  ?— A.  It  was  for  awhile. 

Q.  It  was  a  corporation? — A.  No;  it  was  not  a  corporation; 
was'the  name  of  the  firm;  it  was  never  incorporated. 

Q.  That  was  the  style  you  did  business  by? — A.  That  was  tl 

name  we  gave  it.  .  T  , 

Q  What  was  the  name  of  the  gentleman?— A.  John  A.  Johns 

was  the  first  partner,  and  the  second  partner  was  John  W  Dennis. 

O  This  bill  is  for  cards,  letterheads,  Ragland  envelopes,  re 
sign's,  dodgers,  and  cards,  aggregating  $23  60;  that  was  for  part 
the  business  of  the  firm;  that  is  right,  isn  t  it.— A.  Yes,  and 
these  bills  were  paid  they  were  paid  by  me;  he  was  out  ot  the  Hu 

ness  entirely^  ^  ^  .g  bm  of  M  E.  Montgomery  Ad  vert  isn 

Conipanv  against  the  National  Claim  and  Advertising  Compan 
what  was  that  for?— A.  That  was  the  name  we  gave  it,  the  tit, 
that  is  it  was  selected  as  a  name,  but  there  was  no  company  to 
except  myself  and  the  people  that  assisted  in  the  business. 

'  Q.1  Who  were  they?-A.  Well,  Miss  Van  Dever  worked  in  the 
and  I  had  several  other  collectors  hired  at  different  times  to  soli 
business.  \Y  e  never  did  much  business  there. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  193 

Q.  You  did  business  under  the  name  of  the  Johnson  &  White 
Realty  Company  and  the  National  Claim  and  Advertising  Com- 
any? — A.  No;  the  National  Claim  and  Adjustment  Company. 

Q.  “Adjt.,”  is  it?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  The  National  Claim  and  Adjustment  Company,  and  you  were 
Iso  doing  business  under  the  partnership  name  of  Johnson  & 
Vhite? — A.  Johnson  &  White;  that  was  the  realty  company,  the 
rst  one. 

Q.  But  you  did  business  under  that  firm  name? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  the  bill  of  $11  of  Henry  L.  George  against  Johnson  & 
Chite  was  against  the  firm  for  firm  business? — A.  It  fell  to  me  to 
ay  this. 

Q.  And  the  last  bill  of  this  number,  another  one  made  by  the  East 
ide  Printing  Company,  is  against  the  National  Claim  Adjustment 
'ompany  for  $25.55,  and  it  is  for  envelopes,  cards,  large  letter- 
eads  with  name,  small  letterheads  without  name,  large  letterheads 
ithout  name ;  letterheads,  small  size  and  second  sheets ;  that  is  right, 
n't  it? — A.  Yes;  that  is  one  of  the  bills  that  I  paid  for  the  business 
in  under  that  name. 

Q.  When  did  you  open  an  account  with  the  First  National  Bank 
l  O’Fallon,  Ill.? — A.  I  opened  an  account  there  at  the  beginning 
f  the  session  directly  after  I  got  my  salary. 

Q.  Give  it  by  the  calendar? — A.  I  presume  it  was  in  February. 

Q.  That  is  what  we  want,  as  nearly  as  you  can  give  it? — A.  Shortly 
fter  I  got  my  salary  there. 

Q.  February,  1909? — A.  Yes;  February  or  March,  somewhere 
ong  there. 

Q.  It  was  after  you  went  to  the  legislature  and  commenced  to 
raw? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  drew,  you  said,  your  salary  and  your  mileage  and 
lur  expenses;  you  said  February,  but  you  drew  them  in  January 
id  February,  didn't  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  drew  $800  the  first  installment  that  you  drew  from  the 
tate  on  account  of  your  salary  as  a  member  of  the  house? — A.  Now, 
don't  recall  just  exactly  what  the  first  installment  was. 

Q.  Wasn’t  that  the  amount? — A.  It  was  either  $700  or  $800,  some- 
here  about  that. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  take  that  $800  to  O’Fallon  and  deposit  it  in  the 
irst  National  Bank  to  your  credit? — A.  I  am  not  positive  about 

lat. 

Q.  What  is  vour  best  recollection? — A.  I  am  not  positive  whether 

did  that  or  not. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection? — A.  I  deposited  the  money 
lere  when  I  drew  it. 

Q.  That  money  is  what  I  am  talking  about. — A.  It  might  have 
"en  that  money  I  drew  at  that  time,  or  possibly  I  had  a  deposit  at 
le  Third  National  Bank  in  St.  Louis,  also. 

Q.  You  had  an  account  in  St.  Louis,  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  whose  name  was  that  account? — A.  It  was  in  my  name. 

Q.  Individually? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  In  whose  name  was  the  account  of  the  First  National  Bank  of 
■'Fallon  ? — A.  In  my  name. 

Q.  Individually? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 13 


194  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER. 


Q.  You  drew  the  balance  of  your  salary  of  $2,000,  other  than  the 
$800  which  you  say  you  drew  in  January,  or  about  that  time,  or  Feb 
ruary,  didn't  you,  in  1909  ?— A.  I  stated  that  a  few  minutes  ago  ] 
drew  my  salary  I  thought  before  the  last  of  February ;  all  of  it  5  i 
was  paid  in  two  installments. 

Q.  Well,  at  the  time  the  salary  and  mileage  was  paid,  the  tota 
salary  and  mileage  and  extras  that  you  drew  in  cash  from  the  Stab 
of  Illinois,  as  a  member  of  the  house  of  representatives,  aggregate* 
$2,192  or  $2,193,  didn’t  it?— A.  I  didn’t  figure  it  exactly. 

Q.  That  is  about  it;  I  don't  care  exactly.— A.  It  was  $2,000  salar; 
and  $50  for  postage  and  stationery;  and  the  mileage  about  $80—. 
think  it  was — as  the  expense  account  shows.  .  . 

Q.  Didn’t  you  draw  in  cash  from  the  State  of  Illinois  an  amoun 
aggregating  twenty-one  hundred  and  ninety  odd  dollars  between  th 
time  that  you  took  your  seat  in  the  house  of  representatives  at  Spring 
field  in  the  early  part  of  January,  1909,  and  the  latter  part  of  Febru 

arv? — A.  I  would  not  say  it  was  $2,190. 

Q.  Well,  about  that,  isn't  it?— A.  Somewhere  m  that  neighboi 

hood ;  whatever  that  figures  up. 

Q.  Now,  you  deposited  the  amounts  that  you  got  from  the  fetat 
for  your  salary,  mileage,  etc.,  to  your  credit  in  the  bank,  didn  t  }  ou ?— 
A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  All  of  it  ?— A.  Not  all  of  it ;  no,  sir.  .  . 

Q.  What  part  of  it?— A.  I  kept  a  good  deal  of  it  to  pay  incidents 
expenses.  I  took  up  some  notes  that  I  had  given  for  campaig 

Q.  How  much? — A.  I  think  there  was  a  note  of  $100,  and  thei 
was  another  note  of  $50;  and  I  think  there  was — let’s  see — a  note  c 
$100— $50  and  a  cash  loan  of  $50  from  one  party— and  a  few  sma 
debts  that  wav;  I  paid  a  printer’s  bill  of  $78  and  something. 

Q.  When  you  tell  about  what  the  printer’s  bill  was,  won  t  you  te 
about  what  the  printer’s  bill  was;  I  don’t  care  for  the  exact  amoun 

and  give  it  rapidly,  in  round  numbers  ?  ,,11 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  interrupt?  Have  you  not  the  check  hei 
showing  the  amount  you  disbursed  out  of  the  Fnst  National  an 
Third  National  banks  there? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  care  to  go  into  all  those  amounts. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  are  driving  him  to  tell;  and  here  are  the  cheel 

and  bills.  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  he  says  he  can  tell,  and  will  give  us  approx 

mately  the  amount,  that  is  all  there  is  to  it.  .  . 

The  Witness.  It  was  $78  and  some  cents;  I  am  not  positive  as  1 

the  amount.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  sufficient — about  $<8; — A.  les. 

Judo*}  Hanecy.  Did  you  deposit  any  of  the  money  that  you  ss 
you  o-ot  from  Browne  there  in  Springfield  about  the  latter  part  < 
the  session,  or  the  $100  or  the  $50  you  say  you  got  from  Browne 
the  Brio-o-s  House  in  Chicago  on  the  16th  of  June,  or  the  $800  V( 
sav  vou  got  from  Browne  on  the  17th  of  June  at  the  Briggs  Hoiis* 
did  you  deposit  any  of  those  amounts  to  your  account?— A.  Not 

the  bank  as  a  deposit ;  I  left  it  out.  . 

Q.  Did  you  deposit  any  part  of  it  in  any  bank  to  your  creclitf- 

A.  No :  not  in  any  bank ;  I  left  it  in  a  department  store. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  you  have  stated. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  195 

Judge  Han ec y.  You  don't  know  the  name  of  the  man  you  left  that 
vith? — A.  I  can  find  out  for  you;  I  don’t  recall  it  now,  except  Kirk¬ 
patrick  was  principally  responsible  for  it. 

Q.  Did  the  man  who  took  it  from  you,  did  he  count  it  for  you  or 
lid  you  count  it  for  him,  or  did  you  simply  hand  him  the  package 
ind  ask  him  to  keep  it  ? — A.  I  counted  it  out  in  the  presence  of  Mr. 
Kirkpatrick  and  marked  on  the  envelope  the  amount,  I  think  it  was 
seven  or  eight  hundred  dollars,  and  handed  it  in  at  the  window. 

Q.  Did  you  count  it  out  or  did  you  have  the  man  that  you  de- 
)Osited  the  money  with  count  out  that  money  before  it  was  taken  by 
lim  and  put  away  ? — A.  No,  no ;  I  didn't  have  it  counted  by  him. 

Q-  So  that  nobody  but  you  and  your  associate  and  friend  and 
Kirkpatrick  knew  what  was  in  that  envelope  or  the  amount  of  it  ? — 

Y  TV  ell,  the  man  at  the  cashier's  window  knew  what  was  in  it ;  that 
ash  was  in  it,  because  we  told  him  there  were  several  hundred  dollars. 

Q.  He  didn't  know  anything  about  it  except  what  you  told  him  ?— 

Y  No;  he  handed  me  an  envelope  to  put  it  in. 

Q.  The  money  you  say  you  got  from  TYilson  in  St.  Louis  that  you 
■all  your  jack  pot  money,  did  you  ever  deposit  any  of  that  or  any 
>art  of  it  in  a  bank  to  your  credit? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  TV  hat  did  you  do  with  that  ? — A.  Kept  it  in  my  pocket  when  I 
ras  not  spending  it. 

Q.  What  did  you  keep  an  account  in  the  bank  at  St.  Louis  for  ? — - 

Y  I  kept  it  there  because  it  would  be  handy  when  we  were  in  St*, 
jouis  at  the  time ;  we  were  in  St.  Louis  often,  and  it  was  convenient 
o  have  money  over  there  when  you  have  got  some  money. 

Q.  TVe  will  take  your  word  for  that. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Both  of  those  accounts  in  the  bank  in  St.  Louis  proper  and  in 
^ast  St.  Louis;  no,  in  O  Fallon,  were  checking  accounts,  wern’t 
hey? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  also  have  a  bank  account  in  East  St.  Louis? — A.  No, 

ir. 

Q.  The  only  two  that  you  had,  or  only  ones  you  had  was  in  O’Fal- 
on  and  in  St.  Louis  proper? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  your  business,  what  business  you  had  individually  and  the 
•usiness  that  you  and  your  firm,  the  corporations  and  combinations 
rere  doing,  was  all  done  in  St.  Louis,  East  St.  Louis? — A.  Well,  my 
usiness  in  East  St.  Louis - 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  business  office  or  place  of  business  in  St.  Louis 
•roper? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  in  O’Fallon? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  and  your  firm  were  collectors;  that  is,  you  did  a  collection 
usiness  under  the  Claim  and  Adjustment  Company? — A.  Yes;  that 
^as  the  intention  of  the  firm  to  do  collections;  we  did  do  some  of  it. 
Q.  You  did? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  All  the  money  you  collected  through  that  agency  you  took  your 
ommissions  or  percentages  out  of  it?— A.  Yes;  there  wasn’t  very 

luch,  though. 

Q.  Now,  the  receipt  that  you  present  here  of  $10.42  is  made  up  of 
terns  of  room.  $10;  pressing,  $3.75;  laundry,  $2.08? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
hat  is  the  other  items. 

Q.  Those  are  items  other  than  those  we  have  named,  and  the  other 
eceipt  is  a  receipt  for  $18  for  room  rent? — A.  That  is  the  office  there. 


196  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  This  $18  for  room  rent  is  payable  to  William  P .  Launtz  ?—  A. 
YQ*.  Dated  July  7,  1909,  and  the  bill  of  A.  D.  Calkins  is  for  816.43, 

dated  July  5,  1909?— A.  Yes,  sir.  .  . 

Q  You  were  subpoenaed  to  come  here,  were  you  .  A.  les,  sir. 

O’  And  you  told  this  honorable  committee  that  you  are  now  m 
custody  of  an  officer  and  have  been  ever  since  the  criminal  court  com¬ 
menced  proceedings? — A.  Tes.  ,  „ 

Q.  That  was- some  time  last  April.  March  or  April?— A.  ies,  sir. 
Q.  Where  were  you  when  you  were  subpoenaed  by  Tmted  States 
marshal  or  the  representative  of  this  honorable  committee .  *  . 

Where  was  I  at?  Do  you  mean  the  place?  ,  „ 

Q.  Yes;  where  were  you  at? — A.  I  was  up  in  Mr.  Austnan  s  offi  e. 
Q.  Who  took  you  there?— A.  Why,  an  officer  took  me  down  there. 

That  was  Mr 


Licit  W  do  ^  a  »  'rjr 

Q.  That  is  the  state’s  attorney’s  officer?— A.  Ies,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  his  name— what  is  his  name,  rather  ?— A.  Mr.  Ukey 

Q.  Is  he  a  regular  police  officer  assigned  by  the  police  depart  e 
to  the  state’s  attorney’s  office? — A.  That  is  the  way  I  understand  l 
Q.  Did  you  talk  with  State’s  Attorney  W  ayman  before  going  then 

to  Mr.  Austrian’s  office  to  be  subpoenaed  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

*  Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all.  .  , 

Senator  Frazier.  What  place  in  Tennessee  did  you  visit  when  yoi 

say  you  went  home  ( — A.  Knox\  ille. 

Q:  Knoxville?— A.  Yes,  sir.  .  Q  .  v 

O.  Did  you  live  there  before  you  came  to  Illinois  ?— A.  1  es,  sir. 
Q.  Were  you  raised  in  Knoxville?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Knoxville?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  your  father’s  name? — A.  J.  A.  M  hite,  known  a 

^ q  lYhat  was  his  business? — A.  Been  in  the  mercantile  business 

good  many  vears,  followed  up  that  line  of  business.  , 

^  Q.  How  old  were ‘you  when  you  left  home? — A.  I  left  home  thre 

days  after  I  was  21  years  old. 

Senator  Frazier.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  Can  the  next. 


D.  AY.  Holstlaw,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  being  first 


dul 


J J.  \\ .  JlI OLSTLAW ,  bditcu  cro  —  *  , _.  .  1  •  j;  i  Af 

sworn  on  oath  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  in  chief  by  M 
Austrian  and  testified  as  follows : 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  is  your  name? — A.  D.  W.  Holstlaw. 

Q.  Will  you  talk  up,  please,  so  that  the  committee  can  hear  you  .- 

Ylr!  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  never  seen  the  witne: 
before,  but  I  understand  lie  has  a  voice  that  won  t  permit  his  tall 
ing  loud.  If ‘you  can  not  hear  well  at  times,  why  it  is  no  fault  of  tl 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  move  your  chair  up  a  little  closer. 
The  Witness.  Yes.  I  will  move  my  chair  up  a  little  closei. 
Senator  Burrows.  You  have  a  very  good  voice  m 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  is  your  business,  Mr.  Holstlaw  .  A.  wn 

business  am  I  in  now  ? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  197 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  Well,  I  am  farming  and  stock  buying. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  when  you  entered  the  legislature? — A. 
[  was  in  the  banking  business. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside,  by  the  way? — A.  I  live  at  Iuka,  Marion 
bounty,  Ill. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  in  the  banking  business? — A.  About 
;hree  years. 

Q.  And  prior  to  that,  what  business  were  you  in? — A.  Farming 
ind  mercantile  business. 

Q.  When  were  you  elected  to  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Illi- 
lois? — A.  I  was  elected  in  1808 — 1908,  rather. 

Q.  That  is,  you  became  a  member  of  the  forty-sixth  general  as¬ 
sembly? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  which  side,  Republican  or  Democratic? — A.  Democratic. 

Q.  What  house  ? — A.  The  forty-sixth. 

Q.  What,  house,  the  senate  or  a  branch  of  it? — A.  The  senate. 

Q.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  were  you  in  attendance  at  the  general  assembly 
luring  the  months  of  May  and  June,  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  mean  up  to  the  expiration  of  the  session? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was. 

Q.  What  branch,  the  senate? — A.  The  senate. 

Q.  Were  you  in  attendance  at  the  joint  session? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  During  the  voting,  at  intervals,  for  United  States  Senator  ? — A. 
Tes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  on  May  26,  1909,  whom  did  you  vote  for  for 
Jnited  States  Senator? — A.  I  voted  for  William  Lorimer. 

Q.  You  were  there  in  the  joint  session  that  day,  then? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Before  voting  for  William  Lorimer  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909, 
vas  there  anything  said  to  you  by  anyone  about  paying  you  for  vot- 
ng  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? — A.  On  the  night  before  the"  26th,  which  was 
he  25th,  Mr.  Broderick  and  I  were  talking  and  Mr.  Broderick  said 
o  me,  he  said,  “  We  are  going  to  elect  Mr.  Lorimer  to-morrow,  aren’t 
ve?  ”  I  told  him,  “  Yes,  I  thought  we  were,”  and  that  I  intended  to 
rote  for  him. 

Q.  Proceed. — A.  And  he  said — he  says  “  There  is  $2,500  for  you.” 

Senator  Burrows.  Said  what? 

A.  Said  “  There  is  $2,500  for  you.” 

Mr.  Austrian.  Where  was  that  conversation? — A.  It  was  at  the 
it  Nick  Llotel,  on  the  outside  of  the  building. 

Q.  What  night,  the  night  before  the  vote  for  Lorimer  was  taken 
>n  the  26th? — A.  Yes,  sir;  on  the  night  before. 

Q.  What  Broderick  do  you  refer  to? — A.  I  refer  to  Senator 
Iroderick. 

Q.  John  Broderick? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  senator? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  X  Democrat? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  From  Cook  County,  isn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Broderick  at  the  time  you  had  the  conversation 
vitli  him  that  you  would  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer? 

Judge  ITanecy.  I  submit  he  has  answered  that.  Before  he  told 
lim  he  would  get  any  money  at  all  he  said  he  was  going  to  vote  for 
Jr.  Lorimer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute.  If  there  is  any  objection - 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  has  said  that  he  would  vote  for 

lorimer. 


198  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  Pursuant  to  that  talk  did  you  vote  for  Senator 

Lorimer,  the  next  day  ? 

A.  Did  I  vote  for  him  the  next  day  ? 

Q.  Yes.  That  is,  you  voted  for  him - 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  would  like  to  know  what  you 
mean  by  “  pursuant  to  that  talk.'5 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  mean  after  the  talk. 

Senator  Burrows.  After  the  talk? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  You  did  not  mean  m  pursuance  to  that,  that 

there  was  $2,500  waiting  for  him? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  for  you  to  conclude  from  the  evidence. 

That  is  a  conclusion  you  are  to  reach  from  the  evidence. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  would  like  to  know  what  the  witness  under¬ 


stands. 


A.  No,  sir;  I  intended  to  vote  for  him  anyway.  I  had  made  up 

my  mind  to  vote  for  him  before.  119 

Senator  Burrows.  Before  this  conversation  was  had  at  aiH 

A.  \  es  •  -r 

Q.  You  had  made  up  your  mind? — A.  I  had  made  up  my  mind.  I 

did  not  know  that  there  was  anything  in  it. 

Mr  Austrian.  How  long  before  the  conversation  with  Brod¬ 
erick,  in  which  you  were  paid  $2,500,  did  you  intend  to  vote  for  him? 
Senator  Burrows.  I  beg  your  pardon,  k  ou  said  in  which  you 

were  paid  $2,500  ?  ”  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  were  promised 


Senator  Burrows.  It  makes  a  great  deal  of  difference  between 

being  paid  and  promised. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  read  the  question. 

(Question  read  as  follows:) 

Q.  How  long  before  the  conversation  with  Broderick,  in  which  you  were 
promised  $2,500,  did  you  intend  to  vote  for  him? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  just  how  long,  but  some  two  or  three  days 

^Q1  When  Broderick  offered  to  pay  you  the  $2,500,  the  conversation 
on  the  night  of  May  25, 1909,  did  you  tell  him  that  you  would  not 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  object. 


juune  XAAJNJhvi.  i  unj'-oL.  .  ,  .  ,  •,! 

Senator  Paynter.  I  would  like  to  get  the  witness’s  statement  with¬ 
out  counsel  assuming. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  strike  out  the  question.  . 

The  Witness.  He  did  not  offer  me  anything.  After  I  told  him  J 
was  going  to  vote  for  him  he  just  simply  said  that  there  was  $‘ 

in  it  for  me,  and  that  is  all  there  was  about  it. 

Senator  Frazier.  What  did  you  reply  to  that,  when  he  said  that 
there  was  $2,500  in  it  for  you? — A.  I  didn’t  say  a  word;  never  sau 


Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  come  and  get  the  $2,500  ? — A.  Not  at  tha- 
time. 

Q.  When  did  you  get  that  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  That  doesn't  appear. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  asking  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  were  asking- - - 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  assumes  something. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  199 


Mr.  Austrian.  Put  it  this  wav - 

Q.  Were  you  paid  $2,500  by  Broderick  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? — A.  In  Chicago,  in  his  office. 

Q.  Whereabouts  was  his  office  that  you  went  to? — A.  I  don’t 
emember ;  it  was  his  place  of  business,  where  he  had  his  saloon. 

Judge  Hanecy.  In  his  saloon? — A.  Yes,  sir;  in  his  saloon;  but  it 
7as  in  the  office  there  that  it  was  paid ;  in  an  office  that  he  had. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  Mr.  Holstlaw,  when  you  received  the  $2,500, 
id  you  have  any  conversation  with  Broderick  ? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  when  he  handed  it  to  you  ? — A.  He 
ust  simply  says,  “  Here  is  that  money;”  that  is  all. 

Senator  Gamble.  What  was  the  date  of  that? 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  date  wTas  it? — A.  I  think  it  was  about  June 
6,  if  I  remember  rightly ;  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  had  any  business  dealings  with  Mr.  Broderick 
>efore? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Broderick  indebted  to  you  ? — A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  money? — A.  I  took  it  and  put  it 
a  the  bank. 

Q.  What  bank? — A.  In  the  First  National  Bank. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  the  First  National  Bank  or  the  State  Bank  of 
Chicago,  which? — A.  I  believe  it  is  the  State  Bank  of  Chicago — 
•ardon  me,  I  believe  it  was. 

Q.  The  State  Bank  of  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Holtslaw,  did  you  consider  when  Mr.  Broderick  gave 
ou  the  $2,500  that  he  was  indebted  to  you  and  under  any  obligation 
o  give  it  to  you  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to,  Mr.  Chairman,  giving  now  the 
ondition  of  his  mind  then,  or  giving  what  he  thinks  now  was  the 
ondition  of  his  mind  then. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  do  not  think  that  is  a  proper  question.  Ob- 
ection  sustained. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Holtslaw,  wdien  Broderick  gave  you  the  $2,500 
-hat  did  you  think  he  was  giving  it  to  you  for? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Objection  sustained. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  know  what  Mr.  Broderick  was  paying  }tou 
he  $2,500  for  when  he  paid  it  to  you  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to,  Mr.  Chairman;  whatever  he 
lay  think  now  that  he  knew  then  is  not  at  all  material.  He  said 
hat  he  said  nothing  when  they  told  him — if  I  may  be  permitted  to 
uggest,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  this  witness  here  is  not  on 
rial.  If  he  was  on  trial,  then  he  might  be  asked  and  might  be  com¬ 
piled  to  answer,  so  far  as  the  power  existed  to  compel  him  to  an- 
wer,  what  his  motive  wTas,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  intent  or 
aotive  or  design,  or  any  criminal  motive,  intent,  or  design,  of  what 
iis  motive  was  in  taking  a  gift,  as  he  says,  and  it  can  not  be  intro- 
hiced  here  for  the  purpose  of  attributing  an  improper  motive  to 
omebody  who  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  man  at  all,  and  that  is  the 
>nly  purpose  for  which  it  is  offered  here,  and  it  is  the  only  purpose 
or  which  it  could  come  in. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  think,  Judge,  we  will  allow  that  answer  to  be 
>ut  in;  let  the  witness  tell  the  facts,  what  was  said.  It  is  a  question 


200  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


for  the  committee  to  determine  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  given 

Read  the  question.  .  _  TT  i  , 

(Question  read  by  an  unofficial  reporter,  as  follows:  Mr.  Holst 
law,  when  Mr.  Broderick  gave  you  the  $2,500  what  did  you  think  h 
was  giving  it  to  you  for?  ”  Which  was  not  the  last  question  asked 
nor  the  question  requested  to  be  read,  said  reporter  attempting  t> 
take  part  in  the  proceedings,  contrary  to  any  authority  and  contrar 
to  express  instructions  theretofore  given  by  the  chairman  of  the  com 

mittee  not  to  do  so.)  . 

Senator  Gamble.  I  wish  to  offer  a  suggestion.  Let  the  witnes 

give  the  full  facts ;  then  let  the  committee  determine. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  witness  is  indicted  in  Sangamon  County  noi 
for  this  transaction,  and  Mr.  Burke  has  come  up  here  and  is  sittin 

here  specially  now - 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  Judge -  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  show  that  this  man  was  compelled  to  te 

his  story  in  Springfield.  .  .  , 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  the  suggestion  by  a  member  of  the  com 

mittee  that  the  witness  tell  the  facts  is  a  good  one. 

The  Witness.  That  is  what  I  want  to  do. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  thinks  so.  . 

Q.  Have  you  stated  all  you  desire  to  state  on  that  question . — A 
Do  you  want  me  to  answer  the  last  question  that  was  asked  me? 

Senator  Burrows.  The  gentleman  asked  you  if  you  knew  what  M] 
Broderick  was  paying  the  $2,500  to  you  for. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  withdraw  the  question. 

Q.  What  did  he  pay  you  the  $2,500  for? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit,  that  is  the  same  thing  by  a  process  c 
indirection. — A.  Shall  I  aswer  the  question? 

Senator  Burrows.  Objection  overruled.  You  may  answer  that. 
The  Witness.  I  supposed  he  was  paying  it  to  me  because  he  ha 
told  me  that  he  would  give  it  to  me  after  my  having  said  I  was  goin 
to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  and  I  supposed  that  he  paid  it  to  me  f( 

that 

Mr  Austrian.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  prior  to  this  talk  that  you  had  wit 
Mr  Broderick,  the  night  of  May  25,  1909,  had  you  ever  voted  durir 
that  deadlock  for  Senator  Lorimer?— A.  No;  I  never  had  before  tha 
Q.  Did  Mr.  Broderick  ever  pay  to  you  any  other  money  s — A.  JN< 

at  that  time. 

Q.  Thereafter? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much? — A.  Seven  hundred  dollars. 

Q.  What  did  he  pay  you  that  for?— A.  I  don’t  know,  because 
didn’t  ask  any  questions.  He  simply  said  that  there  was  that  mu( 
coming  to  me,  and  I  took  it  [laughter  in  the  room]. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  money?— A.  I  suppose  I  took 
home;  I  don’t  remember  where  I  did  place  it,  but  I  think  I  took 
home  and  deposited  it  in  the  bank  at  home. 

Q.  Your  bank? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Broderick  indebted  to  you  in  any  sum  whatsoev 
when  he  paid  you  the  $700. — A.  Jsot  at  all. 

Q.  How  many  banks  did  you  own  at  that  time? — A.  Just  one. 
Q.  Where?— A.  Well,  I  was  interested  in  another  one,  too,  but 
owned  one  at  Iuka,  and  I  was  interested  in  another  at  Salem,  t 
Salem  National  Bank. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  201 

Q.  You  were  brought  up  here  by  the  sergeant-at-arms,  weren’t 
ou? — A.  This  time? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  No,  sir;  no,  sir;  I  came  alone. 

Q.  I  mean  you  were  subpoenaed? — A.  Oh,  I  was  subpoenaed;  yes, 

ir. 

Q.  At  your  home  town? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all.  Well,  just  a  moment - 

Senator  Paynter.  I  just  want  to  ask  a  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  just  a  few  more  questions,  if  I  may  finish 
ow. 

Senator  Paynter.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  $2,500  and  the  $700  that  you  had  referred 
)  were  both  paid  you  in  cash,  or  by  check  or  how  ? — A.  In  cash. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  denomination  of  the  bills  making  up 
le  $2,500  ? — A.  Most  of  them  were  $100  bills.  I  am  not  sure  whether 
ley  were  all  or  not,  but  most  of  them  were. 

Q.  How  many  times  had  you  ever  been  to  John  Broderick’s  saloon 
Ip  office  that  you  have  referred  to? — A.  Twice. 

Q.  Are  those  the  two  occasions  that  you  have  referred  to  on  which 
lonev  was  paid? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  who  fixed  the  time  for  you  to  come  to  Mr.  Brod¬ 
ick’s  saloon,  if  anyone  ?— A.  I  think  Mr.  Broderick  did.  I  think  he 
rote  to  me;  that  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  On  one  or  both  of  the  occasions  in  question  ? — A.  I  am  not  posi- 
ve,  but  I  think  on  both  occasions.  I  know  he  did  the  first  time, 
it  I  am  not  positive  about  the  second  time. 

Q.  Can  you  fix  approximately  the  date  of  the  payment  of  the 
■cond  sum  in  question,  the  $700  ?— A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  that  I  can, 
nt  it  seems  to  me  that  it  was  some  time  in  July,  but  I  am  not  positive 
)Out  that. 

Q.  The  first  date  you  are  quite  positive  about,  are  you  not? — A. 
es,  sir;  I  am. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  16th  day  of  June?— A.  I  think  it  was  either 
ie  16th  or  the  17th. 

Q.  Did  you  deposit  the  money  in  the  First  National  Bank  in  your 
■vn  name? — A.  No,  sir;  in  the  name  of  my  bank. 

Q.  What  was  the  name  of  that  bank? — A.  The  Holstlaw  Bank. 

Q.  The  Holstlaw  Bank  of  Iuka? — A.  The  Holstlaw  Bank  is  the 

ime  of  it. 

Q.  You  deposited  it  in  the  bank  the  same  dav  that  vou  were  paid 
J  Broderick? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  correct? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  other  deposit  on  that  day? — A.  No,  sir;  I 

d  not. 

Q.  Just  the  $2,500? — A.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Paynter.  Was  the  senatorial  election  mentioned  in  that 
>n versa t ion  between  you  and  Mr.  Broderick  at  the  time  you  say  he 
lid  you  the  $2,500? — A.  It  was  not. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Lorimer’s  name  mentioned? — A.  He  simply  said  to 

e,  “  We  are  going  to  elect  Lorimer  to-morrow - ” 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  about  the  first  conversation,  but  at  the 
me  the  $2,500  was  paid? — A.  No,  sir. 


202  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Lorimer’s  name  was  not  mentioned? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nor  the  senatorial  election?— A.  No,  sir  , 

Q  He  just  handed  you  $2.500?— A.  He  just  handed  it  to  me.  . 

think  he  took  it  out  of  his  office;  he  had  it  in  an  envelope  and  jus 
counted  it  out  and  then  handed  it  to  me,  and  there  was  nothing  said 
Senator  Burrows.  No  explanation? — A.  No  explanation  at  all,  n> 

eXSennaator '  Johnston,  mat  induced  you  to  vote  for  Senator  Lori 
mer? — A.  What  induced  me? 

Q.  Yes.— A.  Well,  in  the  first  place,  we  had  tried  so  long  to  elec 

a  Democrat,  and  we  could  not  do  it,  and  we  thought,  m  fact,  tha 

it  would  make  the  breach  wider  m  the  Republican  party  by  electm; 
a  Republican,  as  we  could  not  elect  a  Democrat;  and  I  naturally  1 
Mr.  Lorimer,  and  I  just  made  up  my  mind  to  vote  for  him 

Senator  Paynter.  Is  it  true  that  Democratic  members  of  the  legr 
lature  were  given  two  or  three  positions  down  there  m  Springfield . 

^  Senator  Paynter.  Is  it  true  that  the  Democratic  members  of  tl 
legislature  were  given  two  or  three  positions  for  their  friends  do 
atTSDrinefield  ? — A.  That  I  don’t  know  anything  about. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  wanted  to  find  out  what  the  custom  was  her 
I  have  been  badly  treated  at  Washington  if  that  is  the  custon 

[LSem!to ' Gamble.  Have  you  stated  all  of  the  conversation  betwe* 
you  and  Broderick  that  occurred  between  you  at  Springfield  "h< 
this  conversation  which  you  have  just  detailed  was  had— was  the 
anything  else  said  in  regard  to  your  vote  in  the  immediate  tiansa 
tion«— A  Well,  I  do  not  remember  that  there  was  anything  else,  i 
just  simply  said  to  me,  as  I  told  you  before-he  says,  We  are  gon 
to  elect  Mr.  Broderick  to-morrow 


elect  ivir.  Dimming  ___  rl  T  tjfi  u; 

Senator  Burrows.  You  mean  Lorimer?— A.  Les;  and  I  told  h 

ucn .. _ _  ..  ..  -r  UT  _ _ : - 4-^  nm  ”  anr  hP  SHI 


U 


1)1  HKU WS.  xuu  mccixi  .  —  --  7  . 

Well,”  I  savs,  “  I  am  going  to  vote  for  him,  and  he  sai 

“  „  7  t  i  i  n _ _ 55  T  nQinoi 


U 


e  was.  wen,  ±  sav»,  „ —  „  j-  ,, 

kk  Well  there  is  twenty-five  hundred  dollars  for  you.  I  don  t  rente) 

ber  whether  he  said,  “If  you  vote  for  him,”  or  whether  that  was  a 
but  if  he  did  say  it,  why  that  was  everything  that  was  said. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  just  ask  a  question? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Mr  Austrl\n.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  you  have  made  a  written  stateme 
of  your  conversation  with  him  on  the  28th  of  May,  1910,  did  you. 

^'Q.  Your  memory  as  to  the  transaction  in  question  was  as  good  th 

as  it  is  now,  wasn’t  it? — A.  I  suppose  so. 

O  Will  vou  read  the  statement  you  made  on  May  28,  1910,  wh 
purports  to  be  signed  by  you,  and  tell  the  committee  whether  tl 

is  your  written  statement  made  on  that  day  .  .  , 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  be  permitted 
show  that  the  statement  was  made  after  he  was  indicted,  after  lie 
called  before  the  grand  jury  in  Sangamon  County  as  a  witness ■  m  re 
tion  to  another  matter  entirely  and  m  no  way  connected  with  tl 
and  that  he  told  the  State’s  attorney  and  told  the  grand  jurv- 
was  called  there  as  a  witness,  and  he  told  them  that  he  did  not  lm 
anything  about  this  transaction  against  Lorimer,  the  bribery 
anything  else,  and  he  did  not  know  anything  about  the  other  tra 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  203 

•tion  that  he  was  being  examined  on  before  that  grand  jury  and 

tat  he  was  then  allowed  to  go,  and  then  certain  lawyers - 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  nothing  of  that  in  evidence  at  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Before  it  is  permitted  to  go  in,  Mr.  Chairman  and 

mtlemen,  I  submit  I  ought  to  be  permitted  to  show - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  not  offered  it  yet. 

Judge  Hanecy  (continuing).  I  ought  to  be  permitted  to  show 
iat  it  was  signed  bv  duress,  and  just  as  soon  as  he  signed  this  state- 
ent,  that  he  was  indicted  after  he  left  the  grand  jury  for  perjury. 
Senator  Heyburn.  I  suggest  that  that  is  a  matter  for  cross-exami- 

ition. 

J udge  Hanecy.  If  I  am  permitted  to  look  at  the  record — - — - 
Senator  Gamble.  The  rule  is,  if  the  witness  is  defective  in  his  recol- 
ction,  and  himself  asks  to  look  at  a  memorandum  in  order  to  re- 
esh  his  recollection,  then  he  may  be  permitted  to  do  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Unless  it  is  asked  for  he  can  not  be  asked  by  coun- 
d  to  do  it. 

Senator  Heyburn.  If  the  document  is  offered,  it  may  be  deferred 
util  your  cross-examination  is  finished. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Just  a  minute,  please. 

Senator  Paynter.  Is  it  offered  for  the  purpose  of  contradicting 
-mething  he  said? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Tes;  that  is  the  purpose.  The  witness  upon  the 
sind - 

Judge  Hanecy.  Now,  I  submit  this  is  not  proper. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit  it  is  proper,  and  I  have  the  books  here  to 
sow  that  it  is  proper,  Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  important  whether  or 
i  t  this  man  received  the  $2,500  as  he  says  gratuitously. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  him  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Bead  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  is  your  written  statement  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  true  at  the  time  you  wrote  it,  and  is  it  still  true? 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  offered,  counsel  says,  to  impeach  the  witness 
tat  he  has  put  upon  the  stand,  and  has  said  in  doing  so  that  he  is 
f  titled  to  full  faith  and  credit,  and  his  honesty  and  credibility  in 
uat  he  said  may  be  taken  as  true,  and  he  can  not  be  heard  in*any 
flirt  or  in  any  judicial  or  other  proceeding - 

The  Witness.  I  think  it  was  just  the  same  as  I  gave  it  a  little  while 
;  o,  isn’t  it  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  There  is  no  controversy  about  it.  The  witness 
ny  answer  the  question;  then  if  there  is  any  inquiry  as  to  the  eir- 
<  instances  under  which  he  made  the  statement,  that  is  proper. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  Where  I  say,  “  wrote  it,”  Mr.  Reporter,  make  it 
'  igned  it.”  He  could  not  write  it;  it  is  written  on  the  typewriter. 

I  he  Witness.  This  is  true,  as  I  remember  it,  and  this  is  just  as  I 
ive  it  a  little  while  ago,  just  as  good  as  I  possibly  could. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  read  what  it  is?— A.  Yes  [reading]. 

A  ho  talked  to  you  on  the  subject,  and  what  was  said?  ” 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  he  is  going  to  read,  that  puts  it  in  the  record, 

Ln.  ’ 


204  INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


to  be 
want 


The  Witness  [reading!.  “  He  said  to  me,  4  Lorimer  is  going 
elected  to-morrow,’  and  he  said,4  There  is  $2,500  for  you  if  you 
to  vote  that  way.’  ’’  Now,  that  is  what  I  have  said  lieie. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  on,  please.  .  .  .  , 

The  Witness  [reading].  “And  the  next  morning  I  voted  for  him. 
Senator  Paynter.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  legal  question,  Mr.  Aus 
trian,  a  question  on  the  law. 

Mr.  Austrian.  All  right.  .  .  ,  ,  ,  ,  I 

Senator  Paynter.  Suppose  the  witness  has  made  a  statement  con^ 

trary  to  the  one  which  he  just  testified  to. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes.  ,  ,  J  ,  ,  ., 

Senator  Paynter.  Ho  you  contend  that  statement,  if  proven,  or  q 

permitted  to  be  proven,  would  be  testimony  to  establish  that  the  firs 

statement  was  the  true  statement  ?  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  question  does  not  arise.  I  do  contend  that 

have  a  right  to  cross-examine,  even  though  I  called  him  to  the  witnes 
stand,  as  I  have  here.  I  could  ask  him, 44  Wasn’t  this  question  putt 
vou  and  didn’t  you  make  this  answer?  ”  even  though  I  call  him  to  th 
witness  chair.  ’  I  could  ask  him  that,  because  he  testifies  contrar 
now,  or  not  as  he  did  in  his  written  statement.  If  you  will  let  m| 

read  vou  a  line 


Senator  Paynter.  I  am  familiar  with  the  law,  perfectly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  that  is  all  I  desire. 

Senator  Burrows.  Go  on  and  show  the  witness  the  statement. 
Senator  Paynter.  It  is  the  universal  rule  of  Kentucky  that  it.  ca 
not  be  introduced  as  substantive  testimony  of  what  he  said  on  son 

other  case  to  affect  his  testimony  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  your  recollection  and  understanding  < 
the  transaction  now,  as  you  have  just  read  it?  A.  That  is  as  I  rea 
Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all.  • 

The  Witness.  That  is  as  I  remember  that  I  said  it  a  while  ago, 
is  just  the  same  thing  as  I  have  said  it  now,  what  I  said  is  the  sar 
as  it  is  here,  as  well  as  I  remember. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Very  well,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir. 


Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

O.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  do  you  know  Mr.  J.  C.  Utterbach,  editor  of  t 
Marion  County  Republican,  at  Salem,  Ill.?— A.  Tes,  sir. 

O.  Hid  you  have  a  talk  w  ith  him  about  a  week  or  ten  days  befc 
Senator  Lorimer  was  elected? — A.  Now,  I  don’t  remember  wlietf 

1  O^Ho  you  remember  whether  you  had  a  conversation  with  .Ni 
Utterbach  before  Senator  Lorimer  was  elected.  A.  Ao;  I  don 
momhpr  whether  I  did  or  not. 

O  Didn’t  you  have  a  conversation  with  Mr.  .T.  C.  Utterbach,  edi 
of  the  Marion  County  Republican,  of  Salem,  Ill.,  and  didn’t  you  s 
to  him,  ten  days  or  two  weeks  prior  to  the  election  of  Senator  Lo 
mer,  didn’t  yoi'i  say  to  him  that  you  were  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lc 
mer  for  Senator?— A.  I  don’t  remember  if  I  did  with  lnm  or  n 
but  I  know  I  did  to  another  editor  down  there  that  I  intended 
vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  but  I  don't  remember  whether  I  did  to  I 
Utterbach  or  not,  that  I  am  not  positive  about. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  205 

Q.  What  was  that  man’s  name,  Mr.  Holstlaw  ? — A.  Mr.  Lewis. 

Q.  Lewis? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  his  full  name? — A.  J.  B.  Lewis. 

Q.  What  paper  is  he  editor  of? — A.  The  Democrat. 

Q.  What  town? — A.  Salem. 

Q.  When  did  you  tell  Mr.  Lewis  that? — A.  That  I  was  going  to 
)te - 

Q.  That  you  were  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  Senator  ? _ A. 

.  don’t  know  how  long  before,  but  it  must  have  been  two  or  three 
leeks. 

Q.  Two  or  three  weeks? — A.  Two  or  three  weeks  before  that. 

Q.  Two  or  three  weeks  before  Senator  Lorimer  was  elected? _ A. 

es,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  J.  J.  Bell?— A.  Yes,  sir;  of  Salem. 

Q.  What  is  that  ? — A.  Salem. 

Q.  He  is  vice-president  of  the  bank  there,  isn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  get  that  name,  please  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  J.  J.  Bell. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  two  or  three  weeks  before  you  voted  for  Sen- 
iot  Lorimer  on  the  2Gth  of  May,  1909,  that  you  were  going  to  vote 
ir  him?— A.  I  remember  telling  him  that  I  thought  that  I  would 
'  te  for.  some  good  Republican,  but  I  do  not  remember  whether  I 
-id  Lorimer;  I  don’t  remember  about  that. 

Q.  Did  you  think  there  was  any  other  man  that  was  before  the 
ipslature,  or  likely  to  be,  for  the  office  of  Senator  of  the  United 
wates,  that  you  thought  was  a  better  Republican  than  Senator 
[►rimer? — A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t  think  so. 

Q.  And  you  think  you  might  have  told  him  then  two  or  three 
ceks  before  Senator  Lorimer  was  elected,  that  you  would  vote  for 
m? 

Senator  Burrows.  He  has  stated  that. 

The  Witness.  Well,  yes;  I  knoAv  it  was  some  time  before. 

Judge  Hanecy.  How  many  others  did  you  tell,  Mr.  Holstlaw, 
m  Mr.  Bell  and  Mr.  Broderick,  or  Mr.  Lewis  and  Mr.  Broderick, 
it  you  were  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United  States 
mator? — A.  I  don’t  remember. 

3-  Well,  you  told  a  number,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes,  I  told  several, 

>t  I  don’t  remember  who  they  were,  and  that  is  the  reason  I  don’t 
member  about  Mr.  Utterbach.  I  believe  I  talked  to  him,  but  I 
in’t  remember  whether  I  told  him  I  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  or 
)L  That  part  of  it  I  don’t  remember;  I  do  remember  of  talking 
•Mr.  Utterbach. 

3-  And  you  told  quite  a  number  of  people,  two  or  three  or  four 
"eks  before  Senator  Lorimer  was  elected,  that  you  were  goino-  to 
•’:e  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator,  didn’t  you?— 

*  Yes,  sir;  I  done  that. 

3-  It  was  no  secret  to  you  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

3.  You  told  that  to  anybody  you  talked  with,  didn’t  you? — A. 
is,  sir. 

3-  You  told  it  to  members  of  the  senate  and  members  of  the  house 

I  Springfield  a  number  of  days  before  you  did  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer, 

I I  that  you  were  going  to  vote  for  him  if  his  name  was  presented, 
‘In  t  you? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  remember  whether  I  told  any  members 


206  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


of  the  house  or  the  senate  members.  I  don’t  remember  about  tha! 

^Q^I^beg  your  pardon.  If  you  talked  to  members  of  the  houa 
or  the  senate  about  that- 


A.'6 ( coiit i n u ing ). ' Bu t  I  think  that  I  did.  That  is  my  judgmen 
now  and  my  recollection  now  that  I  did  tell  some  of  them,  but  I  don 
remember  who  I  did  tell,  because  I  know  several  of  us  were  talkinj 

about  it  :  I  don’t  remember  who  they  were.  ,  . 

O  You  heard  a  large  number  of  members  of  the  house  and  the  sen 
ate  at  Springfield,  both  Republicans  and  Democrats,  say  a  number  o 
weeks  before  Senator  Lorimer  was  voted  for  United  States  Senate 
on  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  that  they  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorime 
for  United  States  Senator  if  he  was  a  candidate  or  if  his  name  wa 

presented  to  the  joint  assembly,  the  joint  session. 

P  Mr  Austrian  Just  a  minute.  Does  the  committee  think  it  i 

proper  a  proper  wav  to  put  a  question  to  the  witness .  . 

1  Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  suggest  the  important  purpose  is  to  sho 

that  it  was  common  talk- 


iat  it  was  common  iaiK -  .  ,  -j.  • 

^Ir.  Austrian.  Not  what  the  purpose  was,  counsel  is  testifyiD 


Tudo-e  Hanecy.  I  am  cross-examining  your  witness,  Mr.  Austria 
Mr.  '"Austrian.  He  is  no  more  my  witness  than  he  is  your  witnes 

he  is  the  committee’s  witness.  „ 

Senator  Frazier.  He  is  not  the  witness  of  either  of  you. 

vrr  Austrian.  I  never  spoke  to  the  man  m  my  lite. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  state  what  took  place,  and  that  will  sett 
the  question 


Cpnntor  Gtimble.  I  think  not.  .  ,  , . 

Tudo-e  Hanecy.  Senator  Frazier  was  not  here  at  that  time. 
Senator  Frazier.  I  have  gone  over  the  record  and  I  am  entire 

^Jud^e  Hanecy.  I  want  to  show  that  it  was  common  talk  befc 
he  was  elected  United  States  Senator  and  a  long  time  before  Senat 
Lorimer  permitted  his  name  to  be  used,  that  it  was  common  ta 
that  if  his  name  was  presented  that  they  would  cote  for  hin  . 
Mr  Austrian.  I  think  counsel  ought  not  to  frame  a  question  h 

thL',d<re  Hanecy  Very  well.  I  will  withdraw  the  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  Very  well,  you  had  better  withdraw  the  qu 

ti°n. 

o  MerHHofstkAV.  you  did  tell  a  number  there  other  than  th 
who  have  been  named  here,  several  weeks,  two  or  three  or  four  we- 
ip  fi  oRiL  rvf  Afnv  1909  that  if  Senator  Lorimei  s  name  i 

SSttd  ‘they Lt.for  bin,  f«r  United  St.tf  Senator, 
his  name  was  presented  for  Senator  they  would  vote  for  him. 
Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  has  stated  ^  I  understand 


Mu  Austrian.  He  said  he  didn’t  remember  telling. 

MrdglS™iEANT‘  He' sakl  he  didn’t  remember  telling  them  that. 
Si  Hanecy.  He  said,  “  I  think  I  did,”  to  me.  not  to  Utterb 
alone  but  to‘a  considerable  others  than  those  who  are  named. 
Senator  Heyburn.  I  think  he  answeied. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  207 
The  Witness.  I  think  I  have. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all  that  I  desire,  if  he  has  answered. 
Senator  Burrows.  You  have  so  stated,  have  you  not? — A.  Yes. 
Senator  Burrows.  I  thought  so. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Senator  Holstlaw,  do  you  know  Mr.  D.  B.  Beaver, 
resident  of  the  village  board  of  Iuka? — A.  B.  N.  Beaver? 

Q.  B.  Y. — A.  B.  Y.  Beaver. 

Q.  lou  know  him? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  quite  well  acquainted  with 

m. 

Q.  Did  he  go  to  you  about  a  month  before  Senator  Lorimer  was 
ected  and  ask  you  to  vote  for  Senator  Hopkins  for  United  States 
.rnator,  and  did  you  tell  him  you  could  not  do  it,  as  you  were 
jing  to  vote  for  Lorimer  whenever  the  time  came  if  his  name  was 
’esented  ? — A.  I  don't  remember  of  having  told  him  that. 

Q.  Did  you  have  that  conversation,  or  that  in  substance,  with 
.  r.  Beaver?— A.  I  hardly  think  so.  I  don’t  remember  of  it,  at  least. 
Q.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  how  many  times  were  you  ever  in  the  saloon  of 
,)hn  Broderick  in  Chicago? — A.  Twice. 

Q.  What  is  that? — A.  Twice. 

Q.  When  was  the  first  time?— A.  About  the  16th  of  June. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  that?— A.  It  was  sometime  in  the  fore- 

i*on. 

Q.  And  when  the  other  time?— A.  Well,  that  was  in  the  forenoon, 
lit  I  don’t  remember  the  date,  but  think  it  was  in  July  sometime. 
Q.  Sometime  in  July? — A.  I  think  so;  yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  may  be  one  or  two  or  a  few  questions,  Mr. 
(lairman  and  gentlemen,  that  I  may  want  to  ask  this  witness  later, 
i  t  I  probably  will  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  may  be  recalled  if  you  desire. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  I  am  through,  if  I  may  reserve  the  ri<dit 
t  recall  him.  te 

Redirect  examination  by  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  had  you  told  anyone  prior  to  the  time  that  you 

i  d  Mr.  Broderick,  the  n  ght  before  Lorimer  was  elected — by  anyone, 
Inean  any  one  of  the  legislature  or  anyone  else — that  you  were  going 

vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United \States  Senator?— A.  Why,  I 
t  nk  T  had  sometime  before. 

Q.^  Who ?— A.  Well,  as  I  think  I  said  I  told  before,  I  think  I  told 
J  •  ^ewis  that  if  an  opportunity  presented  itself,  I  would  vote  for 
Lorimer,  as  we  could  not  elect  a  Democrat. 

Q-  IIow  long  before? — A.  How  long  before  was  it? 
pc-  ^  es.— A.  Y  ell,  it  must  have  been  two  or  three  weeks. 

V-  Didn’t  you  state  on  direct  examination  that  you  had  made 

ii  your  mind  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  three  or  four  days  before  vour 
t:k  with  Broderick? 

bulge  Hanecy.  May  I  invoke  the  objection  that  the  learned  gentle- 
" . n  °n  the  other  side  invoked,  and  was  sustained  on  yesterdav,  and 

’  record  will  disclose  it,  and  I  will  state  that  it  is' not  proper  to 

u  him.  1 

Jr.  Austrian.  I  am  trying  to  find  out. 

senator  Burrows.  The  committee  thinks  the  question  may  be  put. 
Hd  the  question. 

Question  read.) 

I  think  I  stated  that. 


208  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOR1MER. 


Senator  Borrows.  You  think  you  so  stated?— A.  I  think  I  did. 

Mr  Austrian.  Did  you  tell  Lewis,  Bell  or  Utterbacli,  Mr.  Holst- 
law  ihat  you  intended  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer ^or  tor  some  good, 
Republican,  if  the  occasion  presented  itseli .  A.  W  ell,  I  th 

S° QetYoubtoldetlwm' you  intended  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lori, mer,  or  for 

some  good  Republican,  if  the  occasion  presented— which  did  you  tell| 

them*— A.  Well,  1  think  I  told  some  of  them  that  I  was  going  to 

Vote  for  some  Republican  if  the  opportunity  presented  itself,  and  1 
oil  _ i  ,  t  would  vote  for  Lormier. 


think  I  told1 some  of  them  at  the  time  that  I  would  vote  for  Lonmer. 
O  Who  advised  you  that  the  time  had  come?— A.  No  one  at  all. 
Q.  But  you  had  the  talk  with  Broderick  for  the  first  time  on  th< 

25tli  day  of  May,  did  you  ? — A.  A  es,  sir.  n  AT 

Q.  Did  you  know  whether  anyone  was  being  paid  to  vote  foi  Mr 

Lorimer? — A.  I  did  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object.  Tii-. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  has  answered  “  I  did  not.  Judge.  . 
Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  he  has.  That  is  better  than  the  objection 

and  having  it  sustained.  , 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  and  it  is  much  quicker,  and  we  get  alonj! 

faMr.‘  Austrian.  Were' there  any  rumors  in  the  senate  on  the  26th- 
the  25th  and  26th  of  May,  or  any  discussions  in  the  senate  on  th 
25th  and  26th  of  May,  with  reference  to  money  being  paid  to  bu 

votes  for  Senator  Lorimer? 

Tudee  Hanecy.  That  I  object  to,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Objection  sustained.  The  committee  does  nc 

care  for  rumors;  we  want  facts. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all.  .  9 

Senator  Frazier.  May  I  ask  the  witness  a  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly;  every  member  of  the  committee 

privileged  to  ask  questions. 

1  Senator  Frazier.  Who  first  approached  you  with  respect  to  votu 
for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  Who  first  approached  me? 

O  Yes  —A.  Mr.  Broderick  is  the  first  man  who  said  anything 
me  about  it— well,  it  was  there  at  Springfield— I  had  spoken 
others  before,  as  I  said  before,  if  the  time  presented  itself  or  hi 

C0Q6  No  one  had  suggested  to  you  the  name  of  Mr.  Lorimer  at  ail? 


Aq  Up  to  the  time  of  this  conversation  with  Mr.  Broderick? 


No,  sir. 


3  sir.  •  .  •  j 

6.  What  were  the  circumstances  surrounding  that  conversatio 

How  did  you  happen  to  get  with  Mr.  Broderick  and  began  a  b 

about  it? _ A.  Really  I  don’t  know  how  it  happened.  I  just  simf 

met  him  out  in  front  of  the  St.  Nick  Hotel.  . 

Q  Day  or  night?— A.  We  were  quite  good  friends,  you  know 
O.  Day  or  night?— A.  It  was  in  the  evening;  it  was  quite  early. 
Q.  How  did  the  conversation  begin?— A.  I  think  it  began  jusL 
I  told  you.  Mr.  Broderick  said.  “We  are  going  to  elect  Mr.  LoruU 
to  morrow,  aren’t  we?”  And  I  said,  “I  think  so;  and  I  am  got 
to  vote  for  him.”  I  think  that  is  the  way  it  commenced. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  209 


Q.  Had  Mr.  Lorimer’s  name  prior  to  that  time  been  presented  to 
he  joint  session? — A.  No. 

Q.  Had  he  been  a  candidate,  or  had  he  been  voted  for  at  all?— 
L  No. 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  his  name  was  going  to  be  presented  or 

oted  for  the  next  day  until  Mr.  Broderick  told  you? _ A.  Well  I 

oirt  know  whether  I  did  or  not.  I  probably  did  know  it,  but  I 
on  t  remember  about  that.  I  think  that  I  knew  that  his  name  was 
oing  to  be  presented,  but  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  How  did  you  learn  that?— A.  Well,  that  I  don’t  remember- 
ist  simply  hearing  some  of  them  talking  about  it. 

Q.  Who  are  some  of  them  that  you  heard  talking  about  it?— A. 
ve  1,  I  do  not  remember  who  any  of  them  were,  because  there  were 
3  niany  of  us  together.  I  do  not  remember  who  spoke  about  it. 

Q.  You  had  heard  some  one  say  that  Mr.  Lorimer’s  name  would  be 
resented  to  the  joint  assembly  the  next  day? — A.  I  think  I  had. 

Q.  And  you  had  made  up  your  mind  that  you  were  going  to  vote 
ir  him?  A.  ^es;  I  had  already  made  up  my  mind,  if  his  name  was 
resented,  I  w  ould  vote  for  him ;  then,  of  course,  I  made  up  my  mind 
would  vote  for  him. 

Q.  When  this  was  suggested  to  you  by  Mr.  Broderick  you  told 
im  you  were  going  to  vote  for  him  ?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  was  before  he  said  that  there  was  $2,500  in  it  for  you  «— 

.  Yes,  sir.  J 

Q.  Did  you  make  no  reply  at  all  to  the  $2,500  proposition « — A  I 

id  not. 

Q.  There  was  nothing  further  said  at  all? — A.  No,  sir;  there  was 
ithing  further  said.  I  don’t  think  I  said  a  word  to  him  further. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  for  an  explanation  at  all? — A.  No  sir-  I 
;d  not.  ’ 

Q.  1  ou  did  not  ask  where  it  come  from  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  who  was. offering  the  money?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  what  it  was  to  be  paid  for?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  made  no  inquiry  whatever?— A.  No,  sir;  I  made  no  in- 
nry  whatever. 

Q.  When  the  roll  was  called  the  next  day  you  did  vote  for  Mr. 
i rimer ? — A.  I  did  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  other  conversation  with  Mr.  Broderick  or 
nybody  else  with  respect  to  your  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  from  that 

me  on  until  you  came  to  Mr.  Broderick’s  saloon  here  in  Chicago  ? _ 

A.  No;  T  think  not.  - 

Q.  You  didn’t  talk  to  anybody  about  it?— A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t  think 
lid.  I  did  not  with  respect  to  my  vote. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Is  that  all? 


Senator  Frazier  : 

Q.  Just  a  minute.  You  say  you  came  to  Mr.  Broderick’s  saloon 
the  tune  you  received  the  $2,500,  or  in  response  to  a  letter  which  he 
ote  you  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  that  letter  been  put  in  evidence,  does  anybody  know? 

Judge  IIanecy.  We  never  heard  of  it  until  now,  on  our  side. 
Senator  Frazier.  Have  you  the  letter? 

I  he  Witness.  I  think,  perhaps,  I  may  have  it  at  home,  but  I  have 
t  got  it  here. 


70924°— S.  Iiep.  1)42,  61-3 - 14 


2  LG  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOR1MER. 


Senator  Frazier.  Mav  I  be  permitted  to  ask  if  there  was  any  state¬ 
ment  in  that  letter— the  letter  not  being  here— if  there  was  any  state¬ 
ment  in  that  letter  as  to  the  business  upon  which  he  wanted  to  see 

you 2 _ A  No:  there  was  nothing  in  it.  My  best  recollection  is  that 

he  told  me  to  meet  him  at  his  place  of  business  some  time  the  next 
week.  I  think  that  that  was  about  all  in  the  letter. 

Q.  What  was  the  date  of  the  letter,  do  you  recollects — A.  JNo,  sir; 

I  don’t  remember  the  date. 


Q.  You  came  to  Chicago  in  response  to  that  letter?— A.  Yes.  sir. 
Q.  You  went  directly  to  Mr.  Broderick’s  saloon?— A.  Yes,  sir. 


Q.  Did  you  meet  him  there?— A.  He  was  not  there  at  the  time. 

Q,  Had  you  notified  him  before  coming  that  you  were  going  to 

come? — A.  I  think  not.  .  ,  ,  T  a; a 

Q.  On  that  particular  day? — A.  No,  sir;  I  don  t  think  1  aid. 

Q.  When  you  saw  him,  what  did  he  say  and  what  did  you  say  ?— 
A.  He  did  not  say— well,  of  course,  we  greeted  each  other,  and  he 

said  “  Come  in  my  office,"  and  we  just  stepped  in. 

Q,  Was  there  anyone  else  there  except  you  and  Mr.  Broderick  S— 

A.  Not  in  the  office;  no,  sir. 

Q  Well,  what  occurred?— A.  Well,  he  handed  me  $2,500.  . 

Q.  Did  he  count  it  out  to  you?— A.  Yes,  sir;  he  counted  it. 

Q.  Did  you  count  it? — A.  I  did  not  take  hold  of  the  money,  but  J 

iust  run  over  it  as  he  did.  ^  „ 

3  Q.  What  did  he  say?— A.  He  said,  “  There  is  that  $2,500. 

Q.  There  is  that  $2,500?— A.  Yes,  sir 

Q„  Did  you  make  any  response  at  all  ? — A.  I  didn  t  say  anything 


at  all. 

Q.  Just  took  the  money?— A.  Just  took  the  money. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  it? — A.  I  took  it  and  put  it  m  the  bank 
Q*  Did  Mr.  Broderick  owe  you  anything  at  that  time? — A.  Yo,  sir 
Q.  Did  you  have  any  claim  upon  Mr.  Broderick  in  any  respect  o. 

not? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not,  A  .  , 

Q.  Had  vou  ever  been  into  any  negotiations  with  Mr.  Brocleriei 

bv  which  he  would  be  responsible  to  pay  you  $2,500  ?— A.  No. 

Q.  The  only  occasion  you  had— the  only  connection  you  ever  ha< 
with  Mr.  Broderick  about,  the  $2,500  was  the  conversation  you  ha< 
with  him  on  the  night  of  the  25th  ?  A.  That  is  all.  . 

Q.  Before  you  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q  And  then  when  he  actually  paid  out  the  $2,500  .  A.  Yes. 
q*  And  it  was  a  strictly  shut-mouth  business  between  you  am 

Broderick?— A.  Yes,  sir.  - 

Q.  And  you  got  the  money?- — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  kept  it? — A.  Yes,  sir.  #  , 

Jud<re  Hanecy.  May  I  say  in  relation  to  a  matter  asked  about  b 
Senator  Frazier  that  there  is  evidence  here,  I  think  some  place,  tha 
somebody  did  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer— Senator  Mclllvame  or  som 
others,  some  considerable  time  before  he  was  elected.  His  name  ws 
before  the  Senate.  Senator  Mclllvaine,  or  some  others,  some  coi 
siderable  time  before  he  was  elected— before  Lorimer  was  elected— di 
vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  some  considera 
time  before  the  time  we  are  speaking  of. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  exact  date  is  May  13. 

Senator  Heyburn.  It  is  given  in  the  memorandum? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don’t  know  just  as  to  that. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  211 

Senator  Burrows.  We  have  it  in  the  record. 

The  Witness.  That  may  be.  I  don’t  remember  anybody  having 
yoted  for  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  was  the  sixth  time — the  fifth  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  deep-waterway  question  of  voting  a 
£20,000,000  bond  for  the  deep-waterway  proposition  was  a  very  live 
md  active  question  before  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature  at  that 
Jme. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  show,  Mr.  Chairman - - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute,  now. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Senator  Lorimer  was  interested  in  the  legislation, 
he  matter  before  the  state  legislature,  both  houses  of  it  at  that  ses¬ 
sion,  the  legislature  at  which  he  was  elected  Senator  and  was  inter¬ 
ested  there  in  that  question,  as  to  whether  or  not  the  legislature 
you  Id  vote  to  expend  $20,000,000  for  the  deep  waterway,  or  for  a 
lower  plant — the  measure  that  the  people  had  voted  for  at  a  pre¬ 
ceding  election,  and  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  there,  and  that  he  did  not 
spring  up  as  an  unknown  quantity  before  the  members  of  the  legis- 
ature  or  of  the  joint  session,  but  lie  was  there  and  actively  support- 
ng  certain  measures  that  he  and  his  friends  were  interested  in. 

Senator  Gamble.  Now,  would  it  be  relevant  at  this  time,  as  far  as 
lis  testimony,  the  testimony  of  this  witness  is  concerned,  if  his  testi¬ 
mony  is  to  be  believed,  he  said  he  had  made  up  his  mind  prior  to 
his  transaction  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer.  Now,  is  there  any  rea¬ 
son  why  ?  I  do  not  think  that  if  he  had  made  up  his  mind — it  would 
lot  matter  what  were  the  grounds. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  that  is  right.  I  think  that  answers  it, 
■xcept  for  what  I  thought  was  the  assumption  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Senator  Frazier,  that  Senator  Lorimer’s  name  came  that  very  day  for 
he  first  time  to  the  joint  session  or  to  the  men  who  composed  it 

Senator  Burrows.  The  record  will  show  that  he  was  voted  for  pre- 
dous  to  that  day. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  13th. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Senator,  that  I  desire  to  show  is  that 
le  was  voted  for,  and  he  was  there  in  that  legislature,  interested  in 
he  legislation  that  so  many  men  throughout  the  State  were  interested 
n  at  that  time. 

Senator  Paynter.  Judge  Hanecy,  I  do  not  know  what  views  the 
nembers  of  the  committee  have  upon  this  question,  but  so  far  as  I 
un  concerned  I  have  approached  the  hearing  in  this  case  with  the 
iresumption,  or  indulging  in  the  presumption,  that  the  members  of 
he  legislature  who  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer  did  not  do  it  as  a 
esult  of  bribery  or  corrupt  practices.  It  looks  to  me  as  though  they 
re  all  entitled  to  that  presumption  or  to  such  a  presumption  as  that 
mtil  the  contrary  is  shown. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  presumption  that  the  law  gives  them. 

Senator  Paynter.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Senator  Paynter.  And  that  is  one  reason  why  I  do  not  think 
hat  testimony  which  tends  to  show  that  there  were  reasons  why  some 
nembers  who  not  under  suspicion  were  influenced  to  vote  for  Sena- 
or  Lorimer.  I  think  he  is  entitled  to  it  and  the  members  of  the 
egislature  are  entitled  to  such  a  presumption. 


212  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all  that  I  want,  Mr  Senator  Payn ter. 
Senator  Paynter.  It  would  be  a  very  unjust  rule  to  indulge  m  any 

other  presumption. 

Senator  Johnston.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  understand.  .  ,1 

Senator  Paynter.  I  make  the  statement  because  it  may  avoid  the 
supposed  necessity  of  introducing  a  lot  of  testimony  as  to  some 
rumors  or  some  reasons  which  may  have  influenced  members  o  le 

k  Sen^to  HEYBURN.  At  the  suggestion,  and  I  think  there  would  be 
no  dissenting  opinion,  as  to  the  lack  of  presumption  m  favor  of  cor¬ 
ruption  or  corrupt  practices,  we  approach  this  hearing  that  the  pie- 
sumption  of  the  law  always  gives,  the  presumption  of  innocence,  and 

the  burden  is  on  those  who  charge  otherwise. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  burden  that  we  are  trying  to  cany. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  through. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  through. 

The  Witness.  Are  you  through  with  me  i 
Senator  Burrows.  Yes.  Who  is  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Beckemeyer  is,  but  he  is  not  here  now. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  will  now  adjourn  until  10  o  clock  to-morrow 


m°( Whereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  10  o’clock  a.  m.  Thurs¬ 
day,  September  29,  1910.) 


THURSDAY,  SEPTEMBER  29,  1910. 


SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 


At  10  o’clock  a.  m.  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  the 
following  members  of  the  subcommittee  being  present  :  Hon.  J.  C. 
Burrows,  chairman ;  Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble  Hon.  W.  B.  Hey  burn, 
Hon.  Thomas  H.  Paynter.  Hon.  Joseph  F.  Johnston,  Hon.  Moigan  G. 

Bulkeley,  and  Hon.  James  B.  brazier.  ,  A/r 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  please  come  to  order.  Mr. 

Holstlaw  will  please  resume  the  stand. 

Senator  Gamble.  You  made  a  statement  last  night,  Judge  Hanecy, 
when  the  witness  retired,  that  you  reserved  the  right  of  further  cross- 

examination. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Senator  Gamble. 

Senator  Gamble.  Was  it  your  purpose  to  proceed  with  the  cross- 

examination  at  this  time  or  latei  ?  .  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  I  think  probably  I  can  cross-examine  him 

now  nearly  all  that  I  want  to.  I  did  state  to  this  honorable  commit¬ 
tee  some  of  the  reasons  why  I  did  not  want  to  cross-examine  fully 
There  was  an  indictment  pending  at  Springfield. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  proceed  now. 

D.  W.  Holstlaw  resumed  the  stand  for  further  cross-examinatioi 
by  Judge  Hanecy  and  testified  as  follows: 

Judge  Hanecy.  Now.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  you  were  summoned  as  a  wit 
ness  before  the  grand  jury  of  Sangamon  County,  Springfield,  111. 

were  you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir.  ,  ,  ,  ^ 

Q.  That  was  in  a  matter  in  no  way  relating  to  the  election  ot  tn 

United  States  Senator? — A.  No,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  213 

Q.  That  had  to  do  with  what  they  called  the  jack  pot  or  something 
else.  I  don't  care  to  go  into  the  details,  but  simply  to  indicate  that 
it  was  not  connected  with  this.  That  is  right,  isn’t  it? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  that  is  right. 

Q.  You  were  asked  whether  you  wrote  a  letter — you  were  asked 
before  the  grand  jury  if  you  wrote  a  letter  to  a  certain  house - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object;  have  you  finished  your  question,  Judge? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  beg  your  pardon. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  said  you  did  not  think  you  had  or  you  didn’t 
remember. — A.  I  didn’t  remember. 

Q.  You  did  not - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute;  I  move  the  answer  be  stricken  out 
until  I  have  an  opportunity  to  object. 

J udge  Hanecy.  It  is  merely  preliminary. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  he  has  testified  to  before  the  grand  jury  is 
Dnly  evidenced  by  the  minutes  of  the  grand  jury,  and  not  by  what 
Judge  Hanecy  may  put  in  the  mouth  of  this  witness,  I  respectful! v 
submit.  J 

Judge  Hanecy.  Anybody  who  knows  the  facts  as  to  what  was  tes- 
:ified  in  a  court  of  record  or  in  a  grand  jury,  or  anybody  else  may 
HI.  It  is  the  knowledge  of  the  fact,  and  not  the  manner  in  which 
it  is  presented  to  the  body  that  is  to  hear  and  determine  the  ques- 
ion  connected  with  it.  There  is  not  any  way  by  which  we  can  get 
lie  minutes  of  the  grand  jury.  It  is  not  material,  except  as  pre¬ 
liminary  and  leading  up  and  showing  to  this  honorable  committee 
iust  the  connection  and  the  manner  in  which  he  was  there,  then  I 
vill  come  to  the  matter  particularly  in  point. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  I  am  permitted  upon  cross-examination — this 
lemg  a  new  matter,  in  reference  to  what  has  taken  place  before  the 
?rand  jury — if  I  may  cross-examine  upon  it  I  have  no  objection. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  desire  to  ask  whether,  under  the  laws  of  this 
State,  a  proceeding  before  the  grand  jury  may  be  gone  into,  whether 
in  inquiry  may  be  entered  into  in  regard  to  the  proceedings,  except 
n  a  proceeding  direct  to  furnish  or  test  the  truth  of  the  proceedings 
)efore  that  body?  In  other  States  those  proceedings  can  not  be  in- 
juired  into  except  in  a  proceeding — except  for  the  direct  purpose  for 
in  inquiry  in  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  For  perjury. 

Senator  Heyburn.  And  it  can  not  be  inquired  into  for  any  col¬ 
ateral  matter.  I  inquire  as  to  whether  it  is  an  exception  to  the  rule. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  haven’t  any  such  law  here,  Mr.  Senator  Iley- 
>urn.  The  practice  is  that  proceedings  before  the  grand  jury  are  not 
pven  out  by  anybody,  and  if  we  went  into  court  for  an  order  to 
:ompel  the  production  of  the  minutes  before  the  grand  jury,  we 
:ould  not  get  it  in  all  probability,  but  still  the  court  would  have  the 
lower,  if  he  desired  at  that  time,  to  order  it. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  supposed  that  was  the  rule. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  rule. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  an  indictment  pending  here  in  this  State 
n  which  this  witness  and  another  witness  that  is  subpoenaed,  or  will 
>e  subpcenaed  before  this  hearing  is  over,  and  that  indictment  is  still 
lending  in  Sangamon  County,  at  Springfield,  and  the  motion  to 


214  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

quash  the  indictment  was  argued  yesterday,  and  I  think  the  motion 
was  overruled,  from  what  I  saw  in  the  newspapers,  and  the  case  was 
set  for  hearing.  Yesterday  the  State’s  attorney  of  Sangamon  County, 
Mr.  Burke,  was  here.  He  came  up  here  with  Mr.  Holstlaw  \\  hy,  I 
don’t  know ;  but  he  came  up  here  the  morning  befoi'e— the  day  before  I 
in  the  morning— and  he  sat  immediately  back  of  Callahan  O  Laugh- 
lin  there  all  the  time  that  Mr.  Holstlaw  was  on  the  stand.  While  I  do 
not  remember  Mr.  Holtslaw — I  don’t  think  I  ever  saw  him  before  until 
I  saw  him  yesterday — I  can  see  the  manifest  unfairness  of  compelling 
him  to  go  into  certain  matters  that  might  prejudice  or  which  might 
form  a  link  in  a  chain  which  might  prejudice  the  rights  of  the  parties 
litigating  down  there,  and  that  is  the  reason  I  reserved  the  right  here, 
bv  permission  of  this  honorable  committee,  to  call  him  later.  But,  it 
seems  to  me,  there  are  some  things  that  we  can  go  into  here  without 
possiblv  completing  it  entirely,  and  I  am  willing  to  do  that 

Senator  Heyburn.  The  committee  has  not— I  speak  only  for  my¬ 
self  as  a  member  of  the  committee— the  committee  has  not  conferred 
on  it,  but  my  impression  of  the  rule  is  that  you  can  show  that  a  man 
has  been  indicted,  but  you  can  not  go  into  the  proceedings  before  a 
grand  jury  that  resulted  in  the  indictment.  The  fact  that  he  is  in¬ 
dicted  may  be  shown,  but  nothing  further. 

judo'e  IIanecy.  I  supposed  that  this  committee,  Mr.  Senator  Hey- 
burn,  had  unlimited  power  to  investigate  anything,  even  the  courts 
themselves,  and  the  conduct  of  the  judges  m  enforcing  their  rules 

Senator  Heyburn.  Judge  Hanecy,  the  fact  that  we  have  that  power 
does  not  necessarily  mean  that  we  will  exercise  power  beyond  the 
ordinary  rules  under  which  proceedings  of  this  kind  are  adhered  to. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  now  speak  for  myself,  but  I  will  say  that  it 
came  to  me  through  your  statement  during  the  progress  of  this  hear- 
ing  in  re<mrd  to  the  circumstances  in  connection  with  this  witness, 
and  when*3 you  made  the  statement  last  night  to  reserve  the  right  to 
recall  the  witness,  I  supposed  possibly  you  would  recall  him  this 
morning.  But,  if  it  was  your  purpose  to  defer  the  calling  of  him 
until  after  the  disposition  of  the  case  that  is  pending  against  him, 
that  would  be  a  matter  for  the  committee  to  determine  tor  them¬ 
selves  I  have  no  disposition,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  to  insist 
upon  anything  at  this  time  that  would  be  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
witness,  and  the  due  administration  of  justice  because  I  think  the 
committee  has  taken  the  matter  up  so  that  these  subject-matters  might 
be  disposed  of  in  the  ordinary  way  that  they  would  have  through  a 
court  of  justice,  so  that  there  wouldn’t  be  any  interference  by  this 
committee  in  that  procedure.  Of  course  we  would  have  the  power, 
but  whether  or  not  it  would  be  proper  to  exercise  it,  under  the  cir¬ 
cumstances,  would  be  another  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  we  can  clear  it  up.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  you  under  indictment  at  this  time? 

The  Witness.  I  was  indicted  at - 

Senator  Burrows.  T  say,  are  you  now  under  indictment? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  not.  He  was  under  indictment  and  the 
indictment  was  quashed  just  as  soon  as  he  signed  the  paper. 

Senator  Burrows.  Never  mind  about  that,  Judge.  Nevei  mind 

the  reason. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  215 


Q.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  you  were  indicted  and  the  indictment  was 
plashed? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  So  you  are  not  under  indictment  now  ? — A.  No. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  are  held — I  will  withdraw  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Judge  Hanecy,  just  a  moment.  Mr.  Chairman, 
nay  I  have  the  answer  stricken  out  that  the  witness  made  before  the 
jbjection  was  made.  He  answered  “  Yes  ”  before  the  chairman  had 
m  opportunity  to  rule  upon  my  objection  with  reference  to  what 
ook  place  before  the  grand  jury. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  not  really  any  importance  to  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  there  is  importance  to  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  it  be  stricken  out.  Go  on  with  the  witness. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  do  you  know  generally  the  day  that 
mu  went  before  the  grand  jury - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Let  me  put  my  question. 

Q.  Do  you  know  generally  the  date  you  went  before  the  grand 
ury?  I  want  to  show  how  soon  after  your  testimony  37ou  were  in- 
licted  and  then  how  soon  after  that  your  indictment  was  quashed.— 
Y  It  was  about  the  28tli  of  May,  I  think. 

Q.  That  you  went  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  28th  of  May  this  year? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  were  you  indicted  for  perjury? — A.  The  28th. 

Q.  On  the  same  day  ? — A.  On  the  same  day. 

Q.  By  the  same  grand  jury  before  which  you  had  testified? — A. 
fes,  sir. 

Senator  Paynter.  Do  you  mean  there  were  two  indictments 
igainst  him? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  Senator  Paynter.  He  was  called  as  a  witness 
n  a  general  investigation. 

Senator  Paynter.  Yes;  I  understand. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Then  when  he  left  the  grand  jury  room  the  state’s 
ittorney  procured  an  indictment  against  him  the  same  day,  and 
hen — I  will  put  this  question : 

Q.  When  was  it  that  you  signed  this  paper  that  Mr.  Austrian 
showed  you  yesterday? — A.  I  think  it  was  the  29th,  if  I  remember 
fight. 

Q.  The  next  day? — A.  The  next  day. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  were  you  indicted  for? — A.  Perjury. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Upon  the  testimony  that  you  gave  before  the 
*rand  jury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  let  me  see  that  paper? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  haven’t  got  it  now. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  had  it  yesterday,  and  it  was  shown  to  the  wit¬ 
ness  and  extracts  were  read  from  it,  and  I  submit  that  we  should 
nave  it  accessible  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  sorry,  but  it  was  not  my  paper.  T  wish  I 
lid  have  it.  It  was  a  paper  brought  here  in  the  custody  of  the 
state’s  attorney  of  Sangamon  County  and  it  was  his  document,  and 
lie  simply  loaned  it  to  us. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  paper  ought  to  be  in  this  record;  it  was 
shown  to  this  witness. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  it  be  understood  that  it  is  in  this  record. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  saw  it. 


216  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  witness  read  a  question  and  an  answer  from 
it,  and  stated  it  was  the  truth;  and  then  Senator  Gamble  read  the 
entire  document. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  we  can  get  it  from  Mr. 
Burke,  the  state’s  attorney,  when  we  want  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  no  trouble  about  that.  He  understood  • 
that  Mr.  Holstlaw’s  examination  had  been  closed. 

Q.  Who  drew  that  paper,  Mr.  Holstlaw,  the  paper  shown  you 
yesterday? — A.  It  was  Mr.  Fitzgerald,  Lawyer  Fitzgerald,  and  his  i 
partner. 

Q.  Mr.  Gillespie? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  are  partners,  Gillespie  and  Fitzgerald? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  practice  law  in  Springfield,  Ill.  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  One  of  them  was  attorney  for  the  insurance  commission  for  the 
State  of  Illinois,  wasn’t  he?  I 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  as  to  whether  he  was  or  not? — A.  That  I  I 
don’t  know. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute,  when  I  object. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  said  lie  did  not  know. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  don't  make  a  particle  of  difference. 

Judge  Hanecy.  How  did  these  gentlemen  come  to  you  to  draw 
that  paper? — A.  They  were  recommended  to  me  by  the  sheriff. 

Q.  By  the  sheriff? — A.  By  the  sheriff. 

Q.  Of  your  county  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ;  Sangamon  County. 

Q.  That  was  the  sheriff  that  had  brought  you  from  your  home  to 
the  grand  jury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  draw  that  paper? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  Let  him  state  what  took  place  in  the  prep¬ 
aration  of  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  cross-examining. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Very  well. 

The  Witness.  They  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  ask  you  to  instruct  the  witness  not 
to  answer  while  there  is  an  objection  pending.  He  answers  every 
question,  whether  I  object  or  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  not  material ;  we  will  strike  it  out. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  suggest,  if  there  is  to  be  any  inquiry  as  to  how  the 
paper  was  drawn,  that  this  witness  be  asked  how  it  was  drawn,  and 
that  Judge  Hanecy  be  not  allowed  to  tell  him. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  suppose  that  it  is  merely  a  collateral  matter, 

and  that  I  can  lead  the  witness  anvwvav  and  take  him  on,  as  it  is 

%/  #  • 

cross-examination  and  I  would  have  the  right  to  lead  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  Bead  the  question. 

(Question  read,  as  follows:  “  Did  they  draw  that  paper?  ”) 

Judge  Hanecy.  Who  drew  that  paper,  Mr.  Holstlaw? — A.  Mr. 
Fitzgerald  and  Mr.  Gillespie. 

Q.  And  when  it  was  prepared  was  it  presented  to  you? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  By  whom? — A.  By  those  gentlemen. 

Q.  Where? — A.  In  their  office. 

Q.  What  was  said? 

Senator  Burrows.  We  can’t  hear  you  quite. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  said  in  their  office. 

A.  In  their  office. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  217 

Judge  Hanecy.  In  Springfield ?— A.  Yes,  sir;  in  Springfield. 

Q.  On  what  day  ?— A.  I  think  it  was  the  29th  of  May. 

.  Q-  And  wiiat  was  the  conversation  in  relation  to  it  before  you 
agned  it?— A.  Well,  I  read  it  over,  and - 

Q.  And - A.  And  then  signed  it.  That  was  my  statement. 

Q.  les.  And  then  did  they  have  you  sworn  to  it? — A.  No  sir*  I 
hmk  not.  ’  ’ 

Q.  You  did  not  swear  to  it  at  the  time?— A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Did  anybody  say  to  you  or  explain  to  you  why  you  were  re- 
[uired  or  requested  to  sign  that  statement  ?— A.  No ;  they  did  not. 

Q.  Was  there  any  inquiry  of  you  before  the  grand  jury  of  your  vote 
or  Senator  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  show  by  this  witness,  Mr.  Chairman  and 
entlemen,  that  he  was  not  called  as  a  witness  in  the  Senator  Lori- 
ler  inquiry  or  about  voting  for  him,  and  that  this  matter  was  pro¬ 
moted  into  that  paper  without  any  inquiry  being  before  the  grand 
ary  or  anything  of  that  kind,  and  that  the  paper— and  I  have  never 
men  it — I  understand  it  related  to  an  entirely  different  matter. 
Senator  Frazier.  Judge  Hanecy,  was  the  paper  put  in  evidence? 
Judge  Hanecy.  It  was  not,  Mr.  Senator  Frazier,  but  it  was  handed 
)  the  witness,  and  certain  parts  of  it  were  identified  and  read.  That 
i"\  es,  I  submit,  or  I  supposed  it  did,  give  me  the  right  to  examine 
ie  paper.  That  has  been  the  practice,  and  that  is  the  law  here. 
»ast  night,  after  that  took  place,  other  things  intervened,  and  I  sup- 
osed  it  would  be  here  and  accessible  and  that  I  could  get  it  at  any 
me,  so  I  did  not  see  it  yesterday.  It  was  not  formally  entered,  but 
e  have  been  told  here  that  every  time  a  paper  is  shown  to  a  wit- 
mss  that  it  should  be  marked  by  the  official  stenographer,  and  then 

ould  be  accessible  to  the  committee  or  anybody  who  wanted  to 
e  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  stipulate  the  paper  in 
ldence,  and  we  will  procure  it.  Of  course  it  is  the  document  which 
dongs  to  the  state’s  attorney  of  Sangamon  County,  and  under  the 
rection  of  the  committee  a  copy  can  be  had.  But  this  witness  is 
)t  competent  to  state  officially  what  was  before  the  grand  jury  in 
mgamon  County.  He  can  not  testify  as  to  what  matter  or  matters 
ie  grand  jury  had  under  investigation. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  do  not  understand  the  question  is  directed  to 
hat  occurred  before  the  grand  jury. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No.  Bead  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object,  because  that  is  an  indirect  method  of 
tempting  to  disclose  what  testimony  was  given  before  the  grand 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  all  disposed  of.  There  is  nothing  pending 
ider  that  indictment — that  was  procured  and  quashed  after  he 
med  this  paper. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  can  testify— I  can  certainly  testify  as  well  as 
irned  counsel.  I  will  state  that  that  indictment,  except  in  so  far 
he  is  concerned,  is  not  disposed  of  and  that  the  Senator  Lorimer 
:itter  is  pending  in  Sangamon  County  under  an  indictment  for 
nspiracy. 


21S  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  talking  only  about  the  indictment  as  to  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  objection  is  sustained. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  say  anything  to  the  parties  who  asked 
you  to  sign  that  paper  about  not  saying  anything  about  the  vote  tor 
Senator  Lorimer,  or  that  you  would  only  testify  of  making  a  state¬ 
ment  as  to  the  furniture  deal. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  ,  .  ,  ,  ■,  , 

Judge  Hanecy.  Was  there  any  conversation  of  that  kind  had  be¬ 
fore  you  signed  that  paper?  . 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  may  answer.  Read  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  Now.  I  don’t  understand  the  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  t  want  to  know  whether  you  said 


Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  question  be  read  again. 

(Question  read.)  _  .  .  -  »  ,,  , 

The  Witness.  I  would  like  to  have  you  read  it  again,  for  fear  that 

I  do  not  understand  it. 

(Question  reread.) 

A.  I  think  there  was. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  that?  .  .  , 

The  Witness.  I  think  there  was  something  said  about  my  having 

voted  for  Lorimer.  ,  ,,  lr , 

Judge  Hanecy.  Was  there  anything  said  to  you  as  to  what  would 

happen  to  you.  or  the  indictment  that  had  been  procured  against  you 
for  perjury,  if  you  signed  that  paper  or  if  you  did  not  sign  it .  Did 
they  tell  you  what  would  happen  to  you  if  you  did  not  sign  it . 

Senator  Burrows.  That  question  is  plain.  Read  it,  Mr.  Reporter. 

(Question  read.)  . » 

A.  No ;  I  don’t  think  they  told  me  what  would  happen  to  me  it  1 

did  not  sign  it ;  I  don't  think  they  did.  .  ,  ,  , 

Q  What  did  they  tell  you,  if  anything,  as  to  what  would  be  don. 
if  you  did  not  sign  it?— A.  Well,  I  don't  remember  that  they  saio 

anything  about  that.  .  .  ,  i i 

Q.  Did  they  say  the  indictment  for  perjury  against  you  would  be 

quashed  if  you  signed  it? — A.  They  said  this  -they  said  if  I  testi  ec 

to  the  truth  that  the  indictment  would  be  quashed.  # 

Q,  The  truth  on  what? — A.  On — well,  on  the  Lorimer  vote  anc 

also  the  furniture. 

Q.  The  furniture  vote? — A.  1  es,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  then  sign  the  paper? — A.  1  es,  sir.  . 

Q.  And  did  they  then  take  you  before  the  same  grand  juu 

again? — A.  Tes,  sir.  . 

O.  Did  you  then  tell  them  what  was  stated  in  the  newspapers 

Did  you  then  tell  the  grand  jury  what  was  written  m  the  state 
ment  ?— A.  I  don’t  think  they  did.  I  don’t  remember  that. 

O  Well  did  vou  go  back  before  the  grand  jury  then  and  testir 
to  that  part  of  the  paper  that  you  signed  that  referred  to  the  furm 

Mr1  Austrian.  I  object.  That  is  an  indirect  way  of  getting  at  wha 
his  testimony  was  before  the  grand  jury,  getting  it  before  this  hon 
orable  committee— trying  to  get  before  this  honorable  committee  wha 
has  been  ruled  out,  as  T  understand  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  objection  is  sustained. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  219 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  be  heard,  Mr.  Chairman,  on  that?  It  seems 
to  me  that  that  is  important.  I  do  not  want  to  argue  after  there  has 
ieen  a  ruling,  but  I  can  see  how  this  honorable  committee  might 
understand  why  this  man  made  that  statement  that  he  got  $2,500  after 
le  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  and  that  Mr.  Broderick  gave  it  to  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  this  witness  be  withdrawn  out  of  the  room  if 
counsel  is  going  to  make  an  argument  enlightening  us  upon  his 
;estimonv. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  know  why  a  rule  now  should  be  adopted 
iifferent  from  the  one  when  Mr.  Austrian  was  instructing  his 
vitness. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  didn’t  instruct  him,  and  he  was  not  my  witness. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  have  asked  this  witness  to  be  here. 

Senator  Heyburn.  May  I  interrupt  to  ask  a  question?  Are  you 
proposing  to  make  an  argument  in  favor  of  introducing  testimony  as 
o  what  this  witness  testified  before  the  grand  jury? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  show,  Mr.  Senator  Heyburn,  that  this 
vitness  made  that  statement. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Before  the  grand  jury? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Before  the  grand  jury — that  statement  was  writ- 
en,  and  that  he  did  it  because  he  wanted  to  be  freed  from  an  indict - 
nent  that  was  then  pending  against  him  and  had  just  been  procured 
!or  perjury — perjury,  not  in  the  Lorimer  matter - 

Senator  Heyburn.  It  is  not  fair  to - 

Judge  Hanecy.  Simply  to  show  the  motive. 

Senator  Paynter.  Is  the  true  purpose,  Judge  Hanecy,  to  show  us, 
md  affect  the  credibility  of  this  witness — to  show  that  an  inducement 
vas  offered  to  him  to  make  a  statement  with  reference  to  the  Lorimer 
natter,  but  the  indictment  was  dismissed  against  him - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  beg  your  pardon ;  I  did  not  catch  all  of  that. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  say,  is  the  purpose  of  your  inquiry  to  show 
hat  he  made  an  agreement  to  give  this  testimony,  or  the  testimony 
>r  the  recitation  in  this  statement,  in  consideration  that  the  indict- 
nent  would  be  dismissed  against  him? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  Mr.  Senator  Paynter. 

Senator  Gamble.  Hasn't  that  all  been  substantially  disclosed  to  the 
ommittee?  The  witness  has  already  testified  that  he  did  give  testi- 
lony  before  the  grand  jury,  and  that  subsequently  this  statement  was 
>repared  and  signed.  Then,  the  day  following  that,  the  indictment 
?as  dismissed.  Now,  that  is  disclosed  without  disclosing  anything 
hat  occurred  before  the  grand  jury. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all  I  desire. 

Senator  Gamble.  Hasn’t  that  all  been  disposed,  and  isn’t  it  before 
he  committee  now  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  so,  Mr.  Senator  Gamble.  If  that  is  the 
iew  of  all  the  members  of  the  committee,  I  have  nothing  more  to 
ay  in  reference  to  that. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  would  agree  with  the  statement  made  by  Sen- 
tor  Heyburn  that  we  ought  not  to  go  into  the  transaction  before  the 

Tand  jury. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  that  is  explained,  that  is  all  that  I  desire  to  pre- 
ent  to  this  committee. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes. 


220  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  The  indictment,  in  which  you  are  a  witness — the  indictment 
against  Senator  Broderick,  one  of  the  witnesses  on  the  list  here  is 
still  pending  at  Sangamon  County,  Springfield,  and  you  are  a  wit¬ 
ness  there? — A.  Yes,  sir.  , 

Q.  Were  you  ever  indicted  in  Sangamon  County  or  any  other 

place  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer?  e 

Senator  Gamble.  Possibly  I  am  interrupting  too  much,  but  as  1 
understand  the  rule,  and  if  I  understand  it  correctly,  it  is  that  it  a 
man  has  been  convicted  that  fact  can  be  shown  at  any  time  by  any 
competent  evidence  before  a  jury  or  a  committee;  but  if  he  is  simply 
under  an  indictment  the  presumption  of  innocence  still  stands  against 

him.  .  '  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  law  m  this  State.  # 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  law  in  this  State  is  announced  m  the  case  of 
Gao-e  v.  Eddy,  or  Eddy  v.  Gage,  that  the  witness  on  the  stand  may  be 
asked  whether  he  was  indicted  for  perjury.  That  was  asked  the 
witness  and  ruled  out  by  the  trial  court,  and  it  went  on  to  a  final 
decree  or  judgment,  and  went  to  the  supreme  court  and  was  ie\eised 
on  that  express  ground,  because  the  witness  Kimball  was  not  per¬ 
mitted  to  testify  to  the  question  whether  or  not  he  was  indicted. 
Senator  Gamble.  Without  having  been  convicted  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Without  having  been  convicted.  You  can  not  ask 
any  other  witness  that,  but  you  can  ask  the  man  himself  whether  he 

was  indicted,  and  our  supreme  court- -  . 

Senator  Frazier.  Have  you  not  just  asked  this  witness  it  Mr. 
Broderick  was  indicted — isn  t  that  the  question  pending.  _ 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  I  asked  this  witness  if  he  was  evei  indicted. 

Senator  Frazier.  He  said  he  was. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  mean  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer. 

Senator  Frazier.  Let  us  have  the  question  read,  then. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then  if  he  was  indicted  the  record  would  be  the 

best  evidence  of  that  fact.  .  , 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  can  not  be  if  there  is  no  record. 

Senator  Frazier.  Well,  let  us  have  the  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  Bead  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  answer  the  question. 

A.  I  was  not;  no,  sir;  I  was  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 


By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Why  did  you  sign  the  paper,  the  writing  shown  to  you  yester¬ 
day,' Mr.  Ilolstlaw ? — A.  Why  did  I  sign  it? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  Because  it  was  a  statement  that  I  had  made  and  it 

was  a  true  one. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all.  , 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  language  was  formulated  by  someone  else. 

by  those  lawyers,  and  not  by  you  ? — A.  \  es,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 


By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Were  the  questions  put  to  you  that  are  embodied  in  that .state- 
ment,  and  did  you  make  the  answers  therein  embodied? — A.  W  ell,  i 

read  it  over  and  then  I  signed  it. 

Q.  And  it  was  true  was  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  221 

Q.  Did  you  make  it  for  the  purpose  of  relieving  your  conscience? _ - 

L  Well,  I  don’t  believe  I  did  particularly,  but  I  did  it  because  it 

vas  true  and  I  felt  that  it  was  my  duty  to  make  a  statement  to  the 

rrand  jury. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  few  questions. 

Q.  Upon  what  day  did  you  appear  before  the  grand  jury  at 
Springfield  ?— A.  Upon  the  28th  day  of  May. 

Q.  Upon  what  day  was  the  indictment  returned  against  you  for 

)erjury  for  your  testimony  before  the  grand  jury?— A.  The  same 
lay. 

Q.  The  same  day? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Upon  what  day  was  this  paper  signed? — A.  The  29th. 

Q.  Upon  what  day  was  the  indictment  dismissed? — A.  The  same 
ay,  the  29th. 

Q.  Before  or  after  the  paper  was  signed?— A.  Well,  I  think  it 
ras  after. 

Senator  Paynter.  That  is  all. 

The  Witness.  Am  I  excused  so  that  I  can  go  home  now? 

(The  committee  confer  privately.) 

Senator  Gamble.  How  far  is  your  home  from  here,  Mr.  Holstlaw? 
The  Witness.  It  is  about  250  miles. 

Senator  Gamble.  Do  you  go  by  train  or  by  trolley? — A.  Rail. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  the  attorneys  want  the  witness  to  remain 

ere? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir;  I  don’t.  May  we  have  an  understanding? 
ounsel  has  called  for  it,  and  I  will  procure  the  written  statement.°it 
:  ^gned  “D.  W.  II.”— I  will  put  this  question:  It  is  signed 
Nollr  signature,  the  paper  I  showed  you  yesterdav,  Mr. 
lolstlaw,  and  also  Senator  Gamble  saw  it,  and  I  think  he  will  recog- 
lze  it  if  he  sees  it  again.  It  was  the  document  signed  by  you,  dated 

^iy  28,  or  the  29th,  and  on  each  page  was  the  initials,  “  D.  W  H  ”  « _ 

..  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  the  Senator  will  recognize  it  when  he  sees  it. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  do  not  recall,  Mr.  Austrian,  of  it  bearing  any 

i  tc« 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  it  has  a  date. 

Senator  Gamble.  Of  course,  it  was  a  statement  not  sworn  to. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  but  questions  and  answers. 

Senator  IIeyburn.  If  there  is  any  question  in  the  substitution  of 
ie  paper,  we  can  readily  remedy  that. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  presume  we  can  get  a  copv  of  it 
Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Senator  Gamble.  If  we  can  take  the  assurance  that  he  will  come 
ick  here  on  telegraphic  notice,  I  suppose  he  can  go. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  entirely  satisfied  to  let  Senator  Gamble  iden- 
tv  the  paper  that  you  present. 

Mr.  Austrian.  So  am  I. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  want  to  ask  you  one  more  question. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  from  either  District  Attorney  Burke  or 
7  officer  of  the  court  there,  the  judge,  or  this  firm  of  lawyers,  that 
is  indictment  was  to  be  dismissed  against  you,  if  you  signed  this 
‘per?— A.  Yes,  sir.  to 


222  INVESTIGATION 


OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  You  understood  that?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

O  And  that  was  the  agreement  between  you A.  1  es,  sir. 
n  That  talk  related  then  to  the  agreement  to  induce  you  to  sign 
this  paper?— A.  Well,  I  suppose  it  did  in  part. 

Senator  Burroavs.  A  little  louder.  . 

A.  I  felt  it  was  a  true  statement,  and  I  signed  it,  and  I  suppose 
that  had  something  to  do  with  it. 

By  Senator  Paynter: 

Q.  You  were  anxious  to  get  rid  of  the  indictment  against  you  .—A. 

^  O  You  were  really  more  interested  in  that,  weren’t  you,  than  you 
■were  Served  ?n  signing  the  statement  which  tells  the  truth,  as 
you  say?— A.  I  was  very  much  interested  m  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  ask  another  question? 

Senator  Burrows,  les. 

Q  Were  you  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  at  the  time,  immedia  e  y 
after  your  indictment,  and  when  you  signed  this  statement  .—A 

Well,  the  officer  Avas  not  with  me  at  the  time. 

q.  No? _ A.  But  I  was  in  his  custody,  certainly. 

Sen^U>r^AMBLE.^Now|Syou  may  get  away  quick,  Mr.  Holstlaw. 
Mr.  Austrian.  Just  one  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed.  .  ,  ,  M  Tt  uioW 

Mr  Austrian.  Did  the  fact  that  you  were  indicted,  Mr.  Holstlaw 

or  that  you  were  in  the  custody  of  an  officer,  or  that  you  wanted  b 
Z  home  or  that  you  might  be  called  before  the  grand  jury  or  an; 
other  fact  or  circumstance  induce  you  to  sign  that  papei  containing 
as  you  now  read  it,  any  statement  that  was  not  true?-A.  No,  sir 

it  was  true ;  the  statement  that  I  made, 
m  \ Lv^nl nip! v  true ? — A.  P es,  sir:  it  ivas. 

Senator  ISulkeley.'  He  said  that  a  dozen  times;  that  is  as  true  a 

11  Judg^HANECY.  There  is  a  grand  jury  sitting  in  Sangamon  Count 
noAv  ?  9 

aw.  .>»<«. 

The  Witness.  Yes:  I  will  come  on  telegraph  notice. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Michael  S.  Link  here,  or  is  Mr.  Beckemey< 

heMr.  Austrian.  I  think  not.  Mr.  Kirkpatrick  was  referred  to  ye 
terday  in  the  testimony,  and  his  testimony  will  be  very  bnef. 
Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  Kirkpatrick  here? 

Thomas  Kirkpatrick,  a  witness  produced,  sworn,  and  examined 
said  matter,  testified  as  follows: 

Direct  examination  by  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q,  Mr.  Kirkpatrick,  what  is  your  full  name?— A.  Thomas  P.  Kir 

PaQ.'<  Your  full  name  is  Thomas  P  Kirkpatrick?— A  Yes,  sir 
Q.  Where  do  you  reside,  Mr.  Kirkpatrick  ?— A.  Collinsi  llle,  Ill. 


I 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  223 

Q.  Where  did  you  reside  in  1909  ? — A.  In  St.  Louis. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  in  1909? — A.  Lwas  working  for  the 
Irand  Leader  Company  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  White  in  the  Grand  Leader  in  the  year  1909?— 
L  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  on  or  about  what  time? — A.  He 
vas  in  there  several  times  during  the  year  1909. 

Q.  I  have  in  mind  any  time  during  which  he  displayed  any  money, 

f  any  such  time  existed  ? — A.  Some  time - 

Judge  Hanecy  (interrupting).  I  object  to  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 
That  comes  very  clearly  within  the  several  rulings  of  this  committee, 
hat  the  witness,  White,  could  not  show  by  Kirkpatrick  that  he  did 
ertain  things,  and  he  can  not  be  brought  here  to  testify  to  the  things 
hat  White  said  to  Kirkpatrick  or  others. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  suppose  the  number  does  not  change  the  rule  of 
aw,  whether  a  swarm  or  a  small  number.  Now,  the  purpose  of  this 
xamination  is  this:  Counsel  with  a  great  deal  of  suavity  showed  the 
inancial  condition  of  the  witness,  White,  a  month  or  a  month  and  a 
lalf  after  the  payment  of  these  two  sums,  amounting  to  $1,900.  The 
vitness  stated  what  he  did  with  the  money.  I  will  show  that  im- 
aediately  after  he  got  the  money  at  St.  Louis  he  visited  the  Grand 
reader  and  gave  it  to  the  Grand  Leader  through  the  favor  of  Mr. 
Kirkpatrick,  who  was  employed  there.  The  rule  of  law  is  established 
hat  we  can  bring  the  witness  Kirkpatrick  to  show  that  fact. 

Q.  Was  there  any  time  when  he  displayed  any  money  there? 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  question  is  not  what  he  said,  but  what  took 
>lace  there. 

Senator  Lurrows.  The  question  is  whether  he  deposited  any  monev 
here  at  any  time? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  When  ?— A.  I  suppose  in  the  month  of  June,  the 
atter  part,  I  could  not  say  what  date. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  State  now  what  took  place. — A.  It  was  along  late  in  the  after- 
oon,  I  suppose,  I  was  employed  as  floor  manager  there.  Mr.  White 
ame  in  and  asked  me  if  I  would  take  care  of  some  money  for  him 
ntil  the  next  morning.  I  told  him  I  would  see,  and  I  went  over 
nd  spoke  to  Mr.  Hollander,  cashier,  whose  office  is  on  the  fourth 
oor,  and  asked  him  if  he  would  take  care  of  some  money  for  a  friend 
f  mine  until  the  next  morning  and  put  it  in  the  vault,  and  he  said 
I  wdl, ”  and  gave  me  an  envelope,  and  I  gave  the  envelope  to  Mr. 
vhite  and  he  picked  out  some  money  and  marked  $800  on  the 
nvelope  and  put  his  name  on  it.  and  I  handed  it  to  Mr.  Hollander, 
suppose  that  was  about  4  or  4.30  in  the  afternoon.  The  next  inorn- 
ig,  about  9  or  10  o’clock,  Mr.  White  came  and  got  the  package. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  You  didn’t  count  the  money?  You  didn’t  count  the  bills  or  see 
ie  denominations? — A.  I  saw  some  of  the  denominations;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see - A.  (Interrupting.)  They  were  mixed  up. 

Q.  I  didn’t  ask  you  whether  they  were  mixed  up.  Did  you  see  the 
nominations  of  the  bills?— A.  Do  you  mean  of  the  package? 


224  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORI  MLR. 


Q  In  the  package;  yes,  sir— A.  In  the  package? 

O  Yes  sir.  Did  you  see  it-yes  or  no?  Did  you  see  the  denomi¬ 
nations  of  each  one  of  the  bills  that  was  in  the  package?— A.  I 
couldn't  say  that  I  saw- 


Q.  That  is  all  I  want. 


W.  inai  lb  nil  J-  waul.  .  o  a  t 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  the  question ;  did  you  see  them  A.  I 

saw  the  monev  that  he  had.  »  ,  * 

Senator  Burrows.  Bid  you  see  the  denomination  of  each  one  ot 

the  bills? — A.  He  counted  them  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  not  the  question. 

The  Witness.  I  saw  some  50  and  some  *20  dollar  bills. 

By  Judge  Hanecy:  J 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  denomination  of  each  one  of  the  bills .  A.  l 

could  not  sav  that, 

Q.  You  didn’t  do  that?— A.  No,  sir. 

H.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer,  being  sworn  as  a  witness  in  said  matter,  testi¬ 
fied  as  follows : 

Direct  examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Mr.  Austrian  (to  witness).  Now  talk  to  Senator  Heyburn.so  w< 

can  all  hear  you.  TT  T  ~  , 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name? — A.  IT  J.  C.  Beckemeyer. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside?— A.  Carlyle,  Ill.  • 

Q.  How  long1  have  you  lived  there  ? — A.  About  seven  or  eigl 


years. 


Q.  What  is  your  business?— A.  Practicing  law. 

O.  How  long  have  you  been  admitted  to  the  bar  —A.  Since  19(k 
Q.  Were  you  elected  to  the  legislature?— A.  les,  sir;  I  was. 

Q.  When?—  A.  The  last  time  in  1908. 

Q.  When,  prior  to  1908? — A.  1906. 

Q.  If  at  all,  when  prior  to  1906? — A.  Aot  at  all. 

Q.  To  which  house  were  you  elected  in  1906? — A.  To  the  lowe 

house.  _  „  .  ,.  • 

Q.  Of  representatives? — A.  Of  representatives;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  same  in  1908?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Democrat  or  Republican? — A.  Democratic. 

Q  -In  1908,  what  following,  if  any,  the  Browne  or  Tipjpit  c 
either?— A.  I  voted  for  Mr.  Browne  in  the  caucus  for  minorit 

leader.  .  . 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  do  you  recollect  the  election  or  rather  the  vo 

for  United  States^  Senator  in  the  joint  assembly  m  the  session  < 

1909? — A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  Do  you  recall  the  candidacy  of  the  various  candidates,  or  son 

of  them,  the  principal  ones,  during  that  session? — A.  I  think  1  cai 


^  "d  Who  was  the  caucus  nominee  on  the  Democratic  side  for  Unit? 


States  Senator?— A.  Mr.  Stringer 

Q.  The  full  name,  please. — A.  Lawrence.  W  e  always  called  hi 

aQ/Who  were  the  prominent  Republican  candidates  voted  f 
there?  When  I  say  prominent  I  mean  who  were  the  contestants 
far  as  the  vote  disclosed  during  that  session? — A.  Why,  Mr.  Hopkn 
Mr.  Mason.  Mr.  Foss,  and,  I  think,  Mr.  McKinley  was  voted  lor. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  225 

Q.  Those  were  the  ones  who  had  up  to  May  28,  1909,  received  a 

large  Republican  vote,  were  they  not,  the  ones  you  have  mentioned  ? _ 

A.  I  think  those  were  the  principal  ones  voted  for;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  prior  to  May  28,  1909,  did  you  vote— I  mean 
May  26,  and  where  I  said  May  28  I  mean  May  26 — that  is  the  day  of 
the  election.  Prior  to  May  26,  1909,  had  you  voted  for  a  Republican 
for  United  States  Senator  ?— A.  I  had  not ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  what,  if  any,  talk  you  had  with 
Lee  O’Neill  Browne  on  or  about  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  subject-matter  of  voting  for  United  States  Senator?— A. 
As  well  as  I  remember,  it  was  two  nights  before  the  election  of  Sen¬ 
ator  Lorimer.  Mr.  Browne  called  me  to  his  room  and  asked  me  what 
this  talk  was  about  me  not  going  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer.  I 
then  told  him  that  I  didn’t  think  I  could  do  it;  that  in  my  judgment 
anybody  that  did  it  would  be  killed,  politically,  at  home.  'So  Browne 
ihen  insisted  that  it  would  not,  and  said  that  if  a  large  majority  or 
practically  all  of  the  Democrats  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer  that  I 
~ould  afford  to  do  it.  So,  after  talking  the  matter  over,  he  showed 
me  a  list  of  the  different  Democrats  that  he  said  had  promised  to 
rote  for  Senator  Lorimer.  After  going  over  the  list  with  him  I  told 
lim  if  I  could  satisfy  myself  that  all  those  parties  were  going  to 
rote  for  Senator  Lorimer  that  I  would  vote  with  them.  I  think  that 
A  as  about  all  the  talk  we  had  as  well  as  I  remember  now. 

Q.  L  es,  sir.  Did  you  then  go  to  any  of  the  other  Democrats  for 
he  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  or  not  the  statement  made  by 
Browne  to  you  was  correct  ?— A.  Well,  yes ;  I  inquired  of  a  few. 

Q.  Some  I  have  mentioned? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  so;  yes. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  ascertain  ?— A.  Well,  I  learned  from  some 

)f  them  that  I  inquired  of  that  they  were  going  to  vote  for  Senator 
..orimer. 

Q.  And  others? — A.  Well,  I  think  there  were  several  of  them  that 
aid  they  were  not  going  to. 

Q.  Did  any  of  them  state  to  you  under  what  conditions  thev  were 
roing  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer?— A.  Well,  no;  I  can’t  sav  as  tliev 
lid  particularly.  “  J 

Q.  Was  there  any  discussion  had  with  anv - A.  (Interrupting  ) 

can’t  say  that  they  did  particularly.  " 

Q.  Was  there  any  statement  made  or  any  reference  made  as  to 
whether  or  not  they  would  or  would  not  under  certain  conditions 
vhich  conditions  had  not  yet  arisen?— A.  Well,  as  well  as  I  remem- 
»er,  there  was  probably  one  or  two  whom  I  asked  whether  they  were 
foing  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer;  they  said  in  substance,  “  I  am 
rom  Missouri,  and  I  have  got  to  be  shown,”  or  something,  and  that 
'■as  the  substance  of  their  answers  to  me. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  who  came  to  you  the  night  Mr.  Browne— the 
i"ht  of  May  24,  as  you  fix  it  now,  and  requested  you  to  go  to  Mr. 
Uowne’s  room? — A.  I  don’t  know;  it  has  always  been  in  mv  mind 
hat  it  was  Michael  Giblin. 

Q.  Or  Mike  Giblin? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  he? — A.  Lie  was  Mr.  Browne’s  private  secretary. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  on  the  26th  of  Mav  1909? _ 

^  I  did ;  yes,  sir.  5 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  Gl-3 - 15 


22 G  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  And  that  was  the  first  vote  you  had  cast  for  Senator  Lorimer?— 

a  0g  sir  •  i 

Q.  Senator  Lorimer’s  name  had  been  put  in  nomination  as  early  as 

m„v  iq  Lor]  not1? — A.  I  realiv  don’t  know. 

Q.  Some  days  before  you  voted  for  him? — A.  He  had  been  voted 

%b1r  KLayerW-after  you  had  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer 
di?-yJi  have ^  any  further  conversation  with  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  ?- 

<T Wen°anv  time  within  the  next  month  or  two  weeks  or  ten  days 
or  a  week.— X.  A  few  weeks  afterwards  I  met  Mr.  Browne  at 

Starving  Hock  and  bad  a  talk  with  him. 

Q  State  what  that  talk  was.— A,  Mr.  Browne  called  me  out  to 

one  side  and  said  that  within  a  week  or  such  a  matter  he  would  see 
me.  and  that  he  had  a  package  that  he  wanted  to  give  to  me-some- 

thQg  ])id  you  have  anything  in  mind  with  reference  to  his  expres- 

sion  that  be  bad  a  package  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  him  state  the  conveisation. 

Q  Go  ahead. — A.  That  was  about  all  the  conversation  I  had  with 

"TV  Did  you  know  what  he  meant  when  he  said  he  had  a  package? 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  I  object,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen;  that  leaves 
this  witness  to  theorize,  and  the  inference  can  be  drawn  by  the  com¬ 
mittee  as  well  as  by  this  witness  after  he  details  all  that  was  said  ai 

d°Mr  Yustrian  This  committee  can  not  be  as  well  versed  m  the 
methods  of  doing  things  at  Springfield  during  this  session  as  the 
witness  is.  A  nod,  a  wink,  or  a  shake  of  the  head  sometimes  dec  a  . 

WhjhgenHANECY.  If  there  were  any  winking  or  nodding  or  shaking 

°fQheWhat,dateh™sSthisS°talk  with  reference  to  having  a  package- 

with  reference - A.  (Interrupting.)  I  am  ^ying  to  tlun  ^  ^  ^ 

Q.  Assuming  that  the  legislature  adjourned  _  ,  ,  t  t  alr 

jl]ne. _ A.  Well,  it  was,  as  I  remember,  the  12th  of  June,  but  1 

rmt  sure:  I  think  it  was  the  12th  of  June.  . 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  reply  to  that  statement  of  Mr.  Browne  s . 

^  Q.'  liid  you  receive  any  communication  from  Mr.  Browne  imme 

diately  or  shortly  thereafter?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  when  would  you  say,  about  how  long  after  th ns  come 
sation  at  Starving  Rock?— A.  I  should  judge  about  ten  days  atte 

that  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Browne.  it 

O.  What  became  of  that  communication ?— A.  1  destroyed  . 

Q.  Immediately  or  when? — A.  Immediately ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  contents  of  that  communication . 

Tudo-e  IIaxecy.  I  object  to  that,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  think  the  lai 

presumes  that  where  a  witness  deliberately  Jff^^^lTia, 
lie  can  not  be  heard  afterwards  to  explain.  It  it  is  destroyed  wim 
out.  his  procurement  or  his  negligence,  then  the  contents  may 
shown ;  but  if  he  deliberately  destroys  it,  he  can  not  state  the  conten 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  227 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  receive  the  answer. — A. 
What  the  contents  of  the  letter  was?  It  was  inviting  me  to  meet 
Mr.  Browne  in  St.  Louis ;  that  was  the  principal  part  of  the  letter. 

Senator  Burrows.  Was  that  all  there  was  in  it  that  you  can 
•emember  ? — A.  Well,  I  think  it  stated  that  I  was  to  either  meet  him 
)r  some  one  I  would  know  at  the  Southern  Hotel  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Did  it  fix  the  time  when  you  were  to  be  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  it  fix? — A.  The  15th  of  July. 

Q,  Did  you  meet  Mr.  Browne  or  anyone  else  in  St.  Louis  on  the 
.5th  of  July? — A.  I  met  Mr.  Browne  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  You  said  you  got  a  letter  the  21st  of  June,  did  you,  or  do  you 
ix  it  as  the  21st  day  of  June  that  you  met  Browne?  I  want  to  recur 
o  that. — A.  I  stated  a  minute  ago  that  it  was  the  15th  of  July  that  he 
nvited  me  down  there;  it  was  the  21st  day  of  June  I  was  invited 
here. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Browne  in  St.  Louis  on  the  21st  day  of  June? — 

V.  Yes.  sir. 

/ 

Q.  State  what  took  place.  That  Mr.  Browne  is  the  same  Lee 
TNeill  Browne  who  was  the  minority  leader  in  the  forty-sixth  gen- 
Tal  assembly,  was  he  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tell  the  committee,  please,  what  took  place  when  you  met 
Irowne  in  St.  Louis  the  21st  day  of  June. — A.  Mr.  Browne  handed 
ne  a  roll  of  money,  which  he  said  was  $1,000,  which  I  afterwards 
minted  and  found  it  to  be  $1,000. 

Q.  AYhat  did  he  say  it  was  for,  if  anything? — A.  He  handed  me 
he  money  and  said,  “  This  is  Lorimer  money.” 

Q.  Did  you  count  the  money  ? — A.  I  did,  but  not  at  that  time. 

Q.  Thereafter? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  your  meeting  in  St.  Louis  with  Mr.  Browne  was  there  pres- 
nt,  or  did  you  see  anyone  there,  any  other  member  of  the  house  or 
enate — of  the  Illinois  house  or  senate  ? — A.  The  only  other  person  I 
aw  there  was  Mr.  Sheppard. 

Q.  Was  that  Henry  Sheppard? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Democratic  member  of  the  house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  lives  at  Collinsville? — A.  No,  sir;  at  Jersey ville. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  what  did  you  do — I  will  withdraw  that.  Can 
rou  tell  the  committee  in  what  denominations,  if  you  recollect,  the 
51,000  were? — A.  I  think  they  were  all  $50  bills. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  thousand  dollars  after  you  received 
t? — A.  I  don’t  really  know  what  I  did  with  all  of  it.  I  took  it 
lome  and  kept  it  in  the  safe  awhile  and  gradually  changed  it  into 
mailer  money  at  different  places.  When  I  would  change  it  into 
mailer  money,  I  would  deposit  it  in  my  home  bank,  and  I  paid  some 
lebts  I  had. 

Q.  Did  your  father  have  a  bank  at  that  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? — A.  Beckemeyer. 

Q,  Where  your  home  was,  is  that  the  bank  you  refer  to? — A.  No, 
ir;  I  kept  no  regular  deposit  at  my  father’s  bank  at  all. 

Q.  At  the  time,  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  that  Mr.  Browne  gave  you  the 
noney,  this  $1,000,  at  the  Southern  Hotel,  where  was  it,  in  the  lobby 
•I*  in  a  room  or  where? — A.  In  a  room. 

Q.  Was  there  anyone  in  the  room  when  you  went  in  there? — A. 
no,  sir;  when  I  went  in,  as  well  as  I  remember,  Mr.  Sheppard  was 
ust  coming  out. 

Q.  This  same  Henry  Sheppard? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


228  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  At  the  time  he  gave  you  the  thousand  dollars,  did  he  say  any¬ 
thing  about  any  other  moneys?— A.  Yes,  sir;  he  said  there  would  be 

some  more  in  the  future.  .  „ 

Q.  Did  he  say  when?— A.  No,  he  did  not;  a  few  weeks,  in  a  tew 

weeks,  or  ten  days,  or  such  a  matter.  #  . 

Q.  Did  you  receive  any  subsequent  communication  ? — A.  i  did  not. 
Q.  Or  from  anyone  else? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  From  whom? — A.  I  received  a  telegram  from  Robert  E.  VVil- 

S°Q.  That  is  the  Robert  E.  Wilson  who  was  a  Democratic  member  of 

the  house  from  Cook  County  ? — A.  T  es,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  telegram?— A.  I  destroyed  it. 

Q,  When  ? — A.  Why,  I  think  immediately  upon  receiving  it. 

Q.  What  did  that  telegram  ask  you  to  do,  if  anything?— A.  To 

meet  Wilson  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Wilson  in  St.  Louis? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  When?— A.  I  think  it  was  the  15th  day  of  July. 

Q.  Where? — A.  At  the  Southern  Hotel. 

Q.  Where  in  the  Southern  Hotel?— A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  what 

room  it  was.  .  ok 

Q.  In  the  lobby,  or  a  private  room,  or  bedroom,  or  where  { — A. 

In  a  bedroom. 

Q.  Who  was  present?— A.  Joe  Clark,  of  Vandalia. 

Q.  Was  he  a  Democratic  member  of  the  house? — A.  \es,  sir. 

Q.  Anyone  else? — A.  No,  sir.  \es,  sir;  as  I  went  to  lea\e,  1  at  her, 

Mr.  Luke  came  into  the  room  and  I  left  immediately. 

Q.  C.  E.  Luke,  a  Democratic  member  of  the  house? — A.  Tes,  sir. 
Q.  Where  did  he  live?— A.  At  Nashville,  Ill. 

Q.  There  was  Sheppard,  Luke,  A  ilson,  and  yourself,  as  I  under¬ 
stand  vou  to  say  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Anyone  else? — A.  That  is  all  I  remember  of  meeting  there. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Mr.  A  hite  there?— A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  there? — A.  I  did  not.  . 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  St.  Louis? — A.  \es,  sir;  I  think  it  was  that 

day  I  met  him  in  St.  Louis  on  the  street. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  the  committee  what  took  place  in  that  room 

in  the  Southern  Hotel  on  that  occasion? 

Judge  Ha nec y.  I  do  not  care  to  argue  this,  but  I  want  to  renew 
the  objection  I  made  before.  I  think  it  has  been  ruled  out  on  sc\cial 

occasions,  called  the  u  jack-pot”  matter. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  objection  is  in;  you  can  proceed. 

The  Witness.  Mr.  Wilson  handed  me  a  roll  of  money. 

Q.  Where?— A.  In  the  Southern  Hotel  in  a  room. 

Q„  In  his  room  or  an  adjoining  room,  or  where?— A.  In  the  room. 
Q.  Who  was  in  the  room  when  you  got  it? — A.  Mr.  Clark  was  in 

the  room. 

Q.  Anvone  else? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  is,  Joe  Clark?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  did  he  hand  you?— A.  Nine  hundred  dollars. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  that  $900? — A.  Well,  $500  of  it  I  depos¬ 
ited  in  a  St.  Louis  bank.  , 

Q.  What  bank?— A.  I  think  they  call  it  the  Commercial  I  rust 

Company;  I  think  that  is  the  name  of  it.  It  is  on  Jetfeison  an 
Olive  in  St.  Louis. 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  229 


Q.  Toil  deposited  it  in  that  bank  after  you  received  it  from  Wil¬ 
son? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Alien  ? — A.  I  think  on  the  7th  of  August  I  deposited  it  there. 

Q.  That  was  $500  of  the  $900  you  received  from  him,  was  it? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  that  date? — A.  I  think  it  was  on  the  7th  of  August, 

Q.  Did  Wilson  say  anything  to  you  on  that  occasion,  on  the  15th 
of  July,  when  those  men  were  present,  with  reference  to  the  de¬ 
nomination  of  the  money,  or  anything  pertaining  to  that  subject,  that 
he  was  about  to  hand  to  Sheppard?— A.  I  think  he  made  the  state¬ 
ment  that  he  had  a  $500  note,  and  that  he  was  instructed  to  give  that 
to  Sheppard. 

Q.  Did  he  say  by  whom? — A.  I  don’t  remember  whether  he  said 
by  whom  or  not.  I  think  probably — I  would  not  say  whether  he  did 
or  not. 


Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  on  the  subject  ? — A.  It  seems  to  me 
he  said  that  he  got  his — that  Browne  told  him  to,  but  I  am  not  sure 
about  that,  though  it  seems  to  me  that  something  like  that  was  said. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  you  testified  before  the  grand  jurv  in  Chicago, 
didn’t  you  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  indicted  for  perjury,  were  you  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  not  indicted? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  1  on  have  testified  in  the  previous  Browne’s  trials,  have  vou 
not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  statement  you  are  now  making  here  is  a  free  and  vol¬ 
untary  statement,  and  the  truth  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  think  you  should  not  follow  that  further. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Very  well. 

Senator  Burrows.  There  is  nothing  to  show  but  that  it  is  free  and 
voluntary. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  did  you  have  any  talk  with  Mr.  Luke  on  that 
occasion? — A.  Do  you  mean  at  St.  Louis? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Q.  1  mean  prior  to  the  meeting  at  St.  Louis,  with  reference  to  this 
subject-matter?. — A.  I  don’t  recall  that  I  did  now.  I  had  a  lot  of 
talk  with  Mr.  Luke,  however,  though: 

Q*  you  have  any  talk  with  Mr.  Clark  upon  the  subject — 
Joseph  Clark — upon  the  subject  of  your  vote  and  his  vote  or  Mr. 
Link's  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer? 


(Question  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

A.  I  don’t  recollect  that  I  did  unless  it  was  simply  to  ask  him  a 
question  several  days  before  the  election  whether  they  were  going 
to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer;  outside  of  that  I  had  no  conversation 

with  him. 

Q*  After  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer  did  you  have  any  talk 
with  Joseph  Clark  upon  the  subject? — A.  Yes,  sir! 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  what  that  talk  was? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  Clark,  you  mean?- 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir.  I  will  ask  the  right  to  recall  this  witness 
after  Mr.  Clark  is  called  as  a  witness. 


Senator  Burrows. 


II  as  this  witness  been  subpoenaed? 


230  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  wish  to  recall  him  upon  this  subject,  so  that  I 
may  not  be  foreclosed. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  Mike  Link  on  the  same  subject? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  same  question. 

Senator  Burroivs.  The  same  ruling. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  didn’t  object  to  that  particular  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  Mr.  Link. — A.  I 
had  no  talk  with  Mr.  Link  at  all  during  this  transaction.  After  we 
got  here  in  Chicago  I  spoke  to  him  once  or  twice,  and  that  is  all  the 

talk  I  ever  had  with  Mr.  Link.  j 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  want  to  identify  some  signatures  on  the  hotel 
register  when  the  boy  brings  them.  That  is  all  at  present. 

Senator  Burrows.  With  that  exception.  You  may  proceed. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Shall  I  proceed? 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  proceed. 

Cross-examination  of  Mr.  Beckemeyer  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  about  the  2d  of  May  of  this  year,  or  late  in 
April,  or  early  in  May  of  this  year,  did  you  receive  a  communication 
from  the  managing  editor  of  the  Chicago  Daily  News  in  relation  tc 
what  you  did  in  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  us  have  the  date  fixed.  Counsel  has  appar¬ 
ently  got  the  written  communication  in  his  hands,  and  then  he  says, 
late  in  April  or  earlv  in  May. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  is  the  reply ;  I  don’t  know  when  they  wrote 
to  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  thought  that  was  the  communication. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  a  communication  from  the  managing  editor  of 
the  Chicago  Daily  News?— A.  I  think,  possibly  I  did.  I  received  a 
telegram,  I  think  from  nearly  all  the  Chicago  papers  a  few  days  01 
the  day  after  White’s  story  was  printed  in  the  Tribune.  I  can  not 
say  as  to  the  News,  but  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  You  wrote  to  the  managing  editor  of  the  Chicago  Daily  News 
didn’t  you?— A.  I  am  not  sure,  I  think  I  recollect  after  the— 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  you  write  to  him? — A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  send  any  telegram?  [Handing  witness  a  paper.]  Not 
that  specific  paper,  but  is  that  what  was  on  the  telegram  you  sent  ir 
reply? — A.  I  did,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  offer  this  in  evidence. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  it? 

Judge  Hanecy  (reading)  : 

Carlyle,  III.,  May  2,  1910. 

Managing  Editor,  Chicago  Daily  News,  Chicago ,  III.: 

No  one  ever  talked  to  me  about  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer.  I  did  it  o 
my  own  free  will  and  accord.  I  know  nothing  of  a  jack  pot  that  was  distribute! 
nor  did  I  ever  hear  of  it.  I  am  willing  to  testify  any  place  on  this  matter. 

II.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer. 

Q.  Your  contract  with  White  to  furnish  this  testimony  was  Apri 
9 - 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  had  no  contract  with  White  to  furnish  testi 
mony. 

Senator  Burrows.  Suppose  we  don’t  indulge  in  these  comments. 

Q.  Have  you  the  communication  you  received  from  the  managing 
editor  of  the  Chicago  Daily  News? — A.  I  don’t  think  I  have;  no,  sir 

Q.  You  can  not  produce  it  here? — A.  No,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  231 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  that  was  ?  What  it  asked  you  for  ? — A. 
No;  I  do  not  remember  specifically;  I  think  it  asked  for  a  statement 
from  me  with  reference  to  White’s  charges. 

Q.  Did  it  ask  you  whether  you  had  talked  with  anybody  about 
money  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer,  and  whether  anybody  had 
talked  with  you  about  money  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  ? — A.  I 
don't  know  whether  it  did  or  not ;  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  Did  it  ask  you  about  the  “jack  pot,”  so  called? — A.  I  don’t 
remember  that  either,  whether  it  did  or  not. 

Q.  Did  it  ask  you  whether  you  were  willing  to  testify  in  that  mat¬ 
ter? — A.  Well,  I  think  probably  it  did;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  live  at  Carlyle,  Clinton  County,  Ill.? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Manuel  Abram,  a  Democratic  member  of  the 
legislature? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  a  Democratic  member  at  the  same  time  you  were,  was 
he  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  his — he  keeps  a  saloon  doesn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  his  saloon  and  talk  with  him  in  relation  to  his 
voting  and  your  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Wait  a  moment;  fix  the  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  know  first  whether  he  went  there.  If  he 
did  not,  it  is  not  necessary  to  fix  the  time. 

(Last  question  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

A.  I  think  possibly  that  there  was  something  said  about  his  voting 
for  Senator  Lorimer  there.  I  was  at  his  place. 

Q.  You  did  go  to  his  place? — A.  I  was  at  his  place;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  talk  with  him  about  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator? — A.  I  think  we  talked  about  it;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  that? — A.  I  guess  it  was  on  April  30. 

Q.  This  year  or  last  year? — A.  This  year. 

Q.  It  was  Saturday,  April  30,  1910";  Was  there  anybody  with 
you  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  it? — A.  Mr.  Welch,  of  Carlyle. 

Q.  Mr.  Welch  is  a  particularly  close  friend  of  yours  at  Carlyle, 
isn't  he? — A.  He  lives  in  Carlyle,  and  is  a  neighbor  of  mine.  He  is 
what  I  would  call  a  friend ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  keeps  a  saloon,  doesn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  Carlyle? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  in  that  conversation  say  this  to  Mr.  Abram  in  the 
presence  of  Mr.  Welch:  “We  have  been  away  from  home  down  the 
river  fishing,  but  we  don’t  want  anybody  to  know  what  we  are  at. 
What  do  you  think  of  this  man,  White;  did  you  see  the  paper?” 
And  did  Abram  say  to  you,  “Yes,  I  saw  it.  I  think  the  fellow  is 
crazy;  I  would  not  believe  him  under  oath.”  And  did  you  say  to 
him,  “  I  never  did  like  the  rat.”  Then  did  you  say  to  him,  “  I  was  not 
in  St.  Louis  on  July  15,  and  never  saw  Wilson  there;  that  was  the 
time  I  was  home,  sick.”  And  did  you  then  turn  to  Welch  and  say, 
“Isn't  that  the  time,  Welch?”  And  didn’t  Welch  say,  “Certainly, 
that  was  the  time  you  were  sick,  I  know  it.”  Then  did  you  say,  “  I 
never  got  any  money  from  Browne  or  anybody  else.”  Did  Abram 
then  say  to  you,  “  What  are  you  afraid  of,  then,  if  you  got  no  money 
from  anybody?  ”  “I  am  not  afraid.”  Then  did  you  say  to  Abram 
at  that  time  and  place,  “  1  am  going  out  of  town  down  t lie  river  fish¬ 
ing  again.  I  don't  know  where  I  am  at  with  that  story  of  White's; 


232  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


don’t  tell  anybody  I  was  here.”  And  did  Welch  say  to  you  at  that 
time  and  place,  “What  the  hell  are  you  afraid  of?  You  didn’t  get 
anything,  so  why  are  you  afraid?  ”  Did  that  conversation  take  place 
at  that  time  and  place?— A.  That  is  rather  a  long  question.  The 
substance  of  that,  I  think,  took  place ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  the  substance  of  what  did  take  place?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  testified,  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  as  a  witness  in  the  trial  of  the— 
second  trial  of  the  case  of  the  People  against  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  in 
the  criminal  court  at  Cook  County,  did  you  not  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  sworn  as  a  witness  before  testifying?  A.  \es,  sir; 

I  was. 

Senator  IIeyburn.  The  witness  shook  his  head. 

The  Witness.  I  said,  “  Yes;  I  was  sworn.” 

Q.  You  were  examined  and  cross-examined  there? 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  go  back  a  moment,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Q,  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  you  had  a  talk  with  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  before 
you  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer,  didn  t  you?  A.  I  did;  yes,  sii. 

"  Q.  And  did  not  Browne  ask  you  if  you  could  vote  for  a  Republican 
for  United  States  Senator  several  days  before  Senator  Lorimer  was 

elected?— A.  Yes,  sir.  T  .  Al 

Q.  And  did  you  say  to  him,  “  Well,  I  might  if  I  knew  who  the 

Republican  was?”  Did  you  say  that  or  that  in  substance ?— A.  I 
think  possibly  I  did.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  we  discussed  voting 
for  most  anybody  to  beat  Hopkins  for  quite  a  while  before  there  was 
any  election,  and  there  was  quite  a  number  of  us  expressed  a  willing¬ 
ness  to  vote  for  Shurtleff  quite  a  number  of  times,  and  I  think,  if  I 
am  not  mistaken,  some  of  the  boys  did  vote  for  him. 

Q.  Edward  D.  Shurtleff,  you  speak  of,  was  a  member  of  the  house 
of  representatives  of  this  State  and  speaker  of  the  house?— A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  discussed  very  generally  by  both  Republicans  and  Dem¬ 
ocrats,  but  very  generally  by  the  Democrats,  as  a  party  that  they 
would  vote  for  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Frazier.  Was  he  a  Republican  or  Democrat?  A.  He  was 


a  Republican.  9 

Q,  You  voted  for  Shurtleff  for  speaker  of  the  house,  didn  t  you?— 

A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  There  were  more  Democrats  that  voted  for  Shurtleff  for  speaker 
of  the  house  than  there  were  Republicans,  were  there  not? — A. 

Yes 

Q  Practically  every  Democrat  in  the  house  voted  for  Shurtleff  for 

speaker  at  that  session? — A.  All  but  one.  , 

O.  And  a  <>reat  many  Republicans  voted  for  him  ? — A.  1  don  t 

remember  the  exact  number. 

Q.  A  great  many?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  later  in  the  session,  when  many  votes  had  been  taken  tor 
Hopkins,  Webster,  Foss,  Mason,  and  others,  the  Democratic  members 
of  the  house  discussed  very  generally  voting  for  some  Republican 
other  than  Hopkins,  Mason,  Foss,  and  Webster;  that  is  a  fact,  isn  t  it . 

Mr.  Austrian.  Does  the  committee  think  counsel  ought  to  testify 
and  add  to  his  question  “  That  is  a  fact,  isn’t  it  ?  ” 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  -me  suggest  that  you  make  your  questions  as 

short  as  possible. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  233 


Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  the  reason  I  asked  him  directly,  and  not 
ask  him  to  tell  what  they  did. 

Senator  Frazier.  He  can  answer  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  is  cross-examination,  and  if  I  am  not  ner- 
nitted  to  do  it - 

Senator  Frazier.  I  am  not  objecting  to  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Answer,  witness. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  discussed  quite  generally. 

Q.  And  that  was  discussed  in  the  session  among  Democrats  a  long 
ame  before  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  was  it  not?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  many  other  Republicans  were  discussed  as  candidates  or  as 

Dailies  that  the  Democratic  members  would  vote  for,  were  they  not? _ - 

Y  I  can’t  say  that  there  was;  no,  sir - 

^  Q.  TV  as  Governor  Deneen  discussed  as  a  candidate  for  United 
states  Senator  that  the  Democrats,  or  many  of  them,  would  vote 
or? — A.  I  don’t  think  that  very  many  of  the  Democrats  at  that 
line  would  have  voted  for  Deneen. 

Q,  He  was  discussed  among  some  of  them,  was  he  not?— A.  I  think 
irobably  he  was. 

Q.  Senator  Lorimer  s  name  was  discussed  among  the  Democrats  a 

freat  deal  a  considerable  time  before  the  26th  of  May,  was  it  not? _ 

V.  As  well  as  I  remember,  probably  a  Aveek  or  ten  days  was  the  first 
liscussion  I  heard. 

Q.  Senator  Lorimer  stated  that  he  would  not  be  a  candidate  and 
rould  not  permit  his  name  to  be  used  at  that  time?— A.  I  don’t  know 
hat  he  e\Ter  said  that. 

Q.  It  was  understood  there  that  he  would  not  be  a  candidate  and 
lid  not  want  to  be  voted  for? 

Senator  Burroavs.  The  witness  says  he  doesn’t  know. 

Q.  Did  you,  av hen  Biwne  asked  you  if  you  could  vote  for  a  Repub- 
ican,  did  you  then  ask  him  what  Republican  he  had  in  mind,  and 

id  he  say  William  Lorimer,  then  a  member  of  Congress? _ A.  I 

on  t  remember  of  that  kind  of  a  conversation  with  Browne. 

Q.  Did  you  say  in  substance  to  Mr.  BroAvne  that  you  would  rather 
ote  tor  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  than  any  other 
republican  you  kneAv,  if  it  would  not  be  objected  to  by  the  Democrats 
i  your  district?— A.  I  don’t  think  I  ever  said  that  to  Mr.  Biwne. 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  in  substance?— A.  I  don’t  think  I  did:  not 
lat  I  remember  of. 

Q.  And  did  Browne  say  to  you,  “Now,  Becky,  I  don’t  want  you 
)  do  anything  in  the  way  of  voting  for  Lorimer  or  anybody  else  that 
l  U11-  ' 11  senatorial  district  among  vour  Democratic 

nends;  Did  he  tell  you  that?— A.  I  don’t  recollect  any  such  con- 
ersation. 

®ixrn-U  ^  as^  ^rn  what  Democrats  he  knew  of  that  would  vote 
>r  \\  llliam  Lorimer  for  Senator,  didn’t  you?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  tell  him  after  he  shoAved  you  that  list? that  if  those 

a  that  list  voted  for  William  Lorimer  for  Senator  that  you  would? _ 

•  I  think  T  told  him  that  if  I  could  satisfy  myself  that  those  on  the 
st  he  read  me  would  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  that  I  would  vote 
ith  them. 

Q.  V  ou  went  back  to  your  senatorial  district,  your  home  there 
riday  or  Saturday  night,  and  remained  until  Monday  night  or  Tues- 
iy  morning,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


234  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  And  did  you  go  back  to  your  senatorial  district  after  William 
Lorimer’s  name  was  being  discussed  as  a  probable  candidate  101  Uni  ed 
States  Senator,  and  did  you  consult  with  a  number  of  your  Demo¬ 
cratic  friends  in  your  senatorial  district  to  ascertain  how  your  voting 
for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  would  be  taken 
there*— A.  I  don’t  think  I  ever  mentioned  Senator  Lorimer  s  name 
at  home;  I  did,  however,  mention  the  question  of  voting  for  a  Repub¬ 
lican  at  home  to  some  of  the  boys. 

Q.  Some  of  the  leading  Democrats  of  your  senatorial  district  (— 
A  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  that?— A.  That  was  probably  a  week  or  such  a 

matter  before  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer.  ,  , 

Q.  Was  it  not  ten  days  or  two  weeks  before?— A.  Well,  probably 
it  was,  it  began  to  look  like  somebody  was  going  to  be  elected  then  1 
began  to  talk  about  it  at  home.  When  it  looked  like  it  might  be  a 
serious  proposition  that  some  one  was  going  to  be  elected. 

6  There  were  a  great  many  farmers  in  the  legislature  at  thal 
time,  were  there  not?— A.  I  don’t  really  know  how  many  farmers 

there  were. 

6  And  they  were  all  anxious  to  get  through  with  their  work  anc 
get  away  and  get  back  home,  then  being  the  period  of  time  whei 
the  legislature  had  generally  adjourned  ? — A.  We  all  were  tired  o 

the  session,  there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Q.  All  wanted  to  get  home  and  wanted  to  elect  somebody  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  How  can  lie  tell  whether  they  wanted  to  elec 

somebody.  I  object.  .  , 

Q.  Was  not  that  a  matter  of  general  discussion  by  you  an< 

others? _ A.  Well,  it  was  discussed  considerably;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Prior  to  that  time;  that  is,  prior  to  the  time  when  you  wer 
talking  or  at  the  time  you  were  talking  with  prominent  Democrat 
of  your  senatorial  district,  and  discussing  the  candidacy  of  LepuL 
lican  and  Democratic  votes  for  a  Republican,  did  anybody  ofter  yo 
or  promise  to  pay  you  any  money  or  other  thing  of  value  tor  votin 

for  Senator  Lorimer? — A.  Yo,  sir. 

Q  When  did  you  say  you  had  this  talk  with  Lee  O  Neil  Brown 

the  last  one  before  the  26th  of  May?— A.  My  best  recollection  is  tin 
it  was  two  nights  before  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer,  wine 
would  make  it  the  24th ;  that  is  my  recollection  of  it 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Browne  at  that  time— Lee  O  -Neill  Browne- 
that  you  would  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United  States  ,  ena  < 
at  that  conversation?  Did  you  tell  him  that?— A.  That  was  « 
conversation  that  I  told  him— if  I  could  satisfy  myself  that  that  1 
he  produced,  if  they  would  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  that  i  wouJ 

go  with  them.  n  ,  ,  ,  * 

Q.  Did  you  satisfy  yourself  that  they  would  vote  for  him .  A. 

went  down,  partly  that  night  and  partly  the  next  day,  and  talked 
quite  a  number  of  the  boys,  and  found  out  that  the  most  of  that  h 
or  practically  all  of  it  were  going  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer. 

Q.  Up  to  that  time  did  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  or  anybody  else,  d 
rectlv  or  indirectly,  offer  you  or  promise  to  pay  you  any  money 
other  thing  of  value  if  you  would  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer,  or  gi 
vou  anything  if  Senator  Lorimer  was  elected?.— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  at  any  time  or  at  any  place  beto 
Senator  Lorimer  was  elected  on  the  26th  day  of  May,  1909,  ever  U 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  235 


you  that  he  or  anybody  else  would  give  you  any  money  or  other 
thing  of  value  afterwards  if  you  did  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United  States  Sena¬ 
tor? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  him  because  of  any  promise,  agreement,  or 
understanding,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  anybody  or  from  any 
source  that  you  would  receive  anything  of  value  for  voting  for  him 
or  after  you  had  voted  for  him? — A.  I  could  not  say  that  I  did; 


no,  sir. 


Q.  What  is  the  fact?  I  don’t  know  whether  you  can  say  it  or 
not;  I  want  the  truth. — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  No,  sir;  you  say? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  willing  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United 
States  Senator  without  regard  to  any  money  or  compensation  or 
other  thing  of  value  being  given  to  you  by  anybody? — A.  Yes,  sir; 
I  was  willing  to  go  with  the  majority  of  the  boys  any  place  at  any 

time. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  in  the  way  of  money  or  compensation  or 
anything  of  value  that  was  held  out  to  you  or  promised  to  you  or 
indicated  to  you  in  any  way  by  Browne  or  anybody  else  or  from  any 
other  source  to  induce  you  in  any  degree  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer 
for  United  States  Senator  on  the  26th  day  of  May,  1909? — A.  No; 
there  was  not. 

Q.  There  was  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q-  Do  you  know  or  do  you  think  or  do  you  believe  or  had  you 
any  indication  that  if  you  did  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United 
States  Senator  that  you  were  to  be  paid  anything  of  value  after¬ 
wards? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed,  Judge. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Aes,  Mr.  Chairman;  I  am  looking  through  the 
testimony  here. 

^  Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  were  you  sent  for  by  the  state’s  attorney  of 
Cook  County  after  the  contract  was  entered  into  between  the  Tribune 
Company  for  the  publication  of  White’s  part  of  the  story?  Were 
you  called  here  by  the  state’s  attorney  of  Cook  County? 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  are  two  questions;  which  do  you  want 
answered?  I  submit  that  counsel  can  not  put  a  question  with  a 
hidden  innuendo  in  it  and  then  chop  it  off,  and  then  have  the  witness 
answer  one  way  or  the  other. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  no  hidden  innuendo  in  the  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  A\  e  agreed  it  was  April  30  not  fifteen  minutes  ago. 

Q.  Were  you  called  in  here  by  the  state’s  attorney  of  Cook  County 
after  the  publication  of  the  White  story,  or  a  part  of  it? — A.  1  was 
subpoenaed  to  appear  before  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  In  Cook  County? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anybody  come  to  Chicago  with  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  it?— A.  Mr.  Welch. 

Q.  What  is  his  name?— A.  G.  N.  Welch. 

Q.  George? — A.  No;  Guilford. 

Q.  He  is  the  man  that  was  referred  to  as  being  with  you  when 
you  went  to  Abram’s  saloon? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  same  man? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


236  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Did  he  go  with  you  to  the  state  attorney’s  office? — A.  lies,  sir; 
he  went  with  me  to  the  criminal  court  room. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  the  name— did  you  meet  the  state’s  attorney 

or  his  representative? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  the  state’s  attorney?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  him  ? — A.  \  es,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  he  wanted? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you?— A.  He  said  he  wanted  me  to  appear 

before  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  Did  he  talk  with  you  about  what  he  wanted  you  to  testify  to 
before  the  grand  jury  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  with  the  state’s  attorney  at  the  time — any  of 
his  assistants — Victor  Arnold,  Mr.  Wayman,  or  Mr.  Marshall? — A. 
He  took  me  in. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  present  but  Mr.  Welch  and  Mr.  Wayman  ?— 
A.  I  don’t  know  whether  Mr.  Welch  was  present.  I  went  to  his  door 
from  the  criminal  court  building,  and  told  Mr.  Wayman  I  was  at 
his  service. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  ask  you  whether  you  had  been  paid  anything 
of  value  or  promised  anything  of  value  to  vote  for  Senator  Lori- 
mer? — A.  I  don’t  know  whether  he  did  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  he  talk  about  it,  or  indicate  that  he  wanted  information 
from  you  at  that  time  upon  that  question? — A.  I  think  afterwards 

some  time  during  the  day. 

Q.  At  that  time? — A.  At  that  particular  time? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  at  that  time  that  you  never  got  any  money 
or  other  th  ng  of  value  for  voting  for  William  Lorimer  for  United 
States  Senator? — A.  I  don’t  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  the  state’s  attorney  after  that  in  relation  to  that 
subject  matter? — A.  I  never  met  the  state’s  attorney,  except  just  a 
minute  or  two  until  I  met  him  in  the  back  room  of  the  grand  jury 
room. 

Q.  Was  he  alone?— A.  No,  sir;  Victor  Arnold  was  with  him. 

Q.  One  of  his  assistants? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  assistant  state’s  attorney  in  charge  of  the  grand  jury 
at  that  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Welch  with  you? — A.  No,  sir;  he  was  not  with  me  at  the 
time. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  with  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  talk  with  Mr.  Wayman  or  Mr.  Arnold  at  that 
time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  this  subject-matter? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  ask  you  there — one  of  them  ask  you — whether  yoi 
ever  had  received  anything  for  voting  for  William  Lorimer  foi 
United  States  Senator  ? — A.  They  did. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  them?— A.  At  that  particular  time  I  madt 
a  complete  statement  to  them;  about  the  same  statement  I  have  mad( 
here. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  them  at  that  time  that  you  had  never  receivec 
any  money  or  other  thing  of  value  for  voting  for  V  illiam  Lorimei 
for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  don’t  remember  that  I  did. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  that? — A.  No;  1  do  not. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


237 


Q.  Did  you  tell  it  to  Mr.  Wayman  or  Mr.  Arnold  at  any  time  prior 

to  that  particular  time  that  you  now  seem  to  have  in  mind « _ A 

Well,  I  think  we  met  and  the  first  talk  with  Mr.  Arnold  was  a  denial 
jf  having  got  anything  at  all ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  lhat  is  what  I  wanted  to  know? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Before  you  were  taken  down  before  the  grand  jury  of  Cook 
County  chd  you  tell  Mr.  Wayman,  Mr.  Arnold,  Mr.  Marshall,  or 
my  other  assistant  or  representative  of  the  state  attorney’s  office 
:hat  you  had  never  received  any  money  or  other  thing  of  value  for 
noting  for  Senator  Lorimer,  either  before  or  after  voting  for  him?— 
Y  I  don’t  know,  I  think  I  denied  knowing  anything  about  it;  not 
he  exact  language  you  are  using. 

Q.  I  didn’t  ask  you  to  use  the  exact  language.— A.  I  denied  it  • 
res,  sir.  L  "  ’ 

Q-  Didn’t  you  tell  him  or  them  that  you  never  received  any  money 
>r  anything  of  value  for  voting  for  William  Lorimer  for  United 
states  Senator? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  did. 

Q.  Then  were  you  taken  before  the  grand  jury  that  was  then  in 
;ession  as  a  witness? — A.  I  want  to  get  straight  on  being  over  there 
hat  day,  now.  If  I  remember  correctly,  I  never  had  talked  with 
Vlr.  \\  ayman  or  Mr.  Arnold  about  this  matter  at  all  before  I  ap- 
)eared  before  the  grand  jury.  '  1 

Q.  I  don't  care  whether  the  same  day  or  not.  The  time  I  was  taili¬ 
ng  about  was  before  you  went  into  the  grand  jury  room ?— A  4s 
veil  as  I  remember,  I  do  not  think  I  ever  had'  any  talk  with  him 
>efore  I  went  into  the  grand  jury  room. 

Q.  Did  they  take  you  to  the  grand  jury  room? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

i  ^ kind  enough  to  tell  this  honorable  committee  the 
late  of  that? — A.  1  don't  know  the  date. 

Q.  About  the  date?— A.  It  was  a  week  or  so  after  the  publication 
t  the  story  in  the  Tribune. 

Q.  Was  that  the  same  day  you  arrived  in  Chicago,  or  some  later 

:ate  ?  A.  I  went  before  the  grand  jury  twice,  I  think,  or  three 

imes. 


time?  A.  I  he  first  time  was  the  same  day  I  arrived 

a  Chicago. 

Q.  When  you  were  taken  before  the  grand  jury  before  the  state’s 
ttorney  were  you  asked  about  whether  you  had  been  paid  anything 
r  promised  anything  or  offered  anything  for  voting  for  William 
primer  for  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Han ec y.  There  is  no  rule,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  any  witness 
ho  testifies  before  a  grand  jury  can  not  tell  what  he  testified  to 
iere.  there  is  a  rule  here  that  grand  jurors  can  not  tell  what 
>ok  place  before  them,  but  there  is  no  rule  of  that  kind  as  to  wit- 
esses.  J  he  common  law  rule  prevails  here  and  prevails  wherever 
ie  common  law  is  enforced — that  what  a  witness  or  other  parties 
p pea  ring  before  a  grand  jury  that  they  may  tell  what  they  testify 
>  or  heard  anybody  else  testify  to,  if  they  heard  any  testimony.  The 
ale  is  here  and  in  all  common  law  states  that  you  may  imneach 
hat  any  witness  testified  to  before  a  grand  jury.  ■  * 

(Last  question  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

A.  I  was  not. 


238 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


O  Didn’t  you  say  anything  about  whether  you  did  receive  any- 
thi^g  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  at 
thatlime  before  that  grand  jury  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  may  have  told  without  being  asked. 

Senator  Burrows.  Answer  the  question. 

A.  The  first  time  no  question  of  that  kind  was  asked. 

O  AY  hen  did  you  go  the  next  time  before  the  grand  jury  (  A.  1 
think  possibly  in  the  afternoon  of  that  same  day ;  it  might  have  been 
the  next  day,  I  am  not  sure  about  that.  I  think  it  was  that  day, 

that  is  correct,  in  the  afternoon.  .  .  . 

O  Did  you  testifv  before  that  grand  jury  on  that  occasion  in  re¬ 
lation  to  receiving  or  not  receiving  anything  for  voting  for  Senator 

Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator?  .  , 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  do  not  think  it  is  proper  for  us  to  hear  testi¬ 
mony  as  to  what  a  witness  testified  to  before  a  grand  jury.  I  do  no 
Mieve  it  is  good  morals  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  conclusions  of 
the  grand  jury,  and  that  is  what  is  amounts  to,  and  I  desire  to  enter 
mv  protest  against  it  as  a  violation  of  the  best  rule. 

■j,Hh>-e  Hanecy.  I  have  no  desire,  Mr.  Chairman  or  gentlemen,  to 
do  anything  that  any  member  of  this  committee  desires  that  I  should 
not  do.  I  beg  the  privilege  of  suggesting  why  I  want  this,  then  if 
this  honorable  committee  does  not  agree  to  it  going  m  I  shall  very 
readily  desist.  I  propose  to  show  here  that  this  witness  was  taken  be¬ 
fore  the  grand  jury  and  was  sworn  and  testified  that  he  never  receive 
any  monfy  or  other  thing  of  value  for  voting  for  At  il ham  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator,  either  before  he  voted  or  after  he  voted. 

Senator  Heyburn.  He  testifies  to  that  now.  .  . 

Juchre  Hanecy.  Then  he  was  taken  out  of  the  grand  jury  room  an 
put  in" charge  of  Police  Officer  Keeley,  city  police  officer  assigned 
dntv  in  the  state  attorney’s  office  and  then  acting  as  police  officer 
under  the  direction  of  the  state’s  attorney.  That  he  was  taken  down 
Ztl  and  out  into  the  custody  of  Mr.  Keeley  and  met  Mr.  Welch, 
bis  friend,  and  Mr.  Arnold,  or '  another '  ^>^8  rttojw 


Semhtor  Frazier.  That  did  n^  occur  before  the  grand  jury  In- 
stead  of  you  testifying  about  it,  why  don’t  you  let  the  witness  testi  y 

ab Tud ge"  Hanecy.  I  want  to  show  the  connection ;  I  do  not  want  it  to 
appear  that  I  am  leaving  any  link  of  the  chain  out,  so  that  they 

Senator  Burrows.  The  Senator  wants  the  witness  to  make  the 

St  JudgeHl^cYTCt  is  what  I  want.  I  was  doing  this  when  there 
was  an  objection  or  protest  on  the  part  of  a  member  of  this  committee 
4eZtor  Hetourn.  I  did  not  object  to  disclosing  what  occurred 
between  this  witness  and  the  officer  outside.  My  objection  applie 
only  to  wdiat  he  testified  to  before  the  grand  jury. 

Sofri"™' S.XStS  L  committing  per 
jury  before  a  grand  jury  ? 

Semfto^PATOraZ  HoSw  ’would  you  prosecute  him  unless  the  facts 
were  disclosed  ? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  239 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  what  I  say.  There  is  no  rule  in  this  State 
hat  you  can  not  prove  in  a  trial  or  any  investigation  that  a  witness 
r  party  did  testify  thus  and  so  or  did  not.  That  is  the  only  way 
ou  can  do. 

Senator  Heyburn.  There  is  no  question  at  all  about  it,  if  you  can 
isclose  the  testimony  before  a  grand  jury  it  goes  to  the  integrity  of 
lie  proceedings  before  that  body.  In  the  jurisdiction  where  I  have 
een  accustomed  to  deal  with  these  questions  those  are  the  exceptions 

i  the  rule. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  the  same  rule  here. 

J udge  Hanecy.  There  is  no  rule  of  that  kind  here  or  in  any  other 
lace  where  the  common  law  is  in  force. 

Senator  Frazier.  Go  on  with  the  witness. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  proceed  then? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  testify  before  the  grand  jury  that  you  did  not  receive 
nv  money  or  anything  of  value  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Does  the  committee  rule  that  is  proper?  I  just  ask 
le  question;  I  didn’t  know  what  the  ruling  was. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  can  answer  the  question. 

A.  I  never  at  no  time  denied  before  the  grand  jury  not  having 
iceived  any  money. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  the  grand  jury  that  you  were  never  promised  any 
loney  before  you  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer,  and  that  you  never 
nderstood  that  you  were  to  get  any  money,  and  were  not  induced 
)  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  by  any  promise,  agreement,  or  under- 
anding?  Did  you  testify  to  that  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  No, 
r;  I  did  not. 

Q.  What  did  you  testify  to  there  before  the  grand  jury  at  the  time 
lu  did  testify? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that.  You  can  not  call  the  grand  jurors 
)  disclose  what  he  testified  to  before  the  grand  jury.  You  can  not 
ill  the  State’s  attorney  to  disclose  what  lie  testified  to.  That  is  the 
iw.  No  matter  what  counsel  on  the  other  side  may  say,  I  state  that 
the  law.  If  I  had  known  this  question  would  arise  I  would  have 
id  the  authorities  here. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  not  the  law. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  but  one  time  that  you  can  disclose  the 
stimony  taken  before  a  grand  jury,  and  that  is  where  you  indict  a 
an  for  perjury  committed  before  that  grand  jury. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  Browne  case  is  a  complete  refutation  of  that, 
he  State’s  attorney  and  the  foreman  of  the  grand  jury  told  what 
'ok  place  before  the  grand  jury  in  the  trial  of  The  People  against 
rowne. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Was  that  for  perjury  committed  before  the 
’and  jury? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  sir;  he  was  called  to  show  the  condition  of  the 
itness  and  what  he  said,  and  that  is  what  I  am  going  to  do  here 

>w. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  Judge  Hanecy  will  read  one  line  that  that  grand 
u’or  testified  as  to  what  the  witness  said  I  will  say  to  you  that  I 
n  wrong  and  he  is  right — just  one  word  of  testimony.  The  fore- 
an  of  the  grand  jury  was  called,  and  he  testified  as  to  whether  or 


240  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


not  he  ordered  a  witness  into  custody  and  whether  or  not  the  man  was 

drunk  when  he  testified  before  the  grand  jury. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  was  the  foreman ;  that  doesn  t  apply  to  a 

itncss 

W1  Judge  Hanecy.  A  grand  juror  takes  an  oath  that  he  will  not  dis¬ 
close  the  evidence  before  the  grand  jury.  It  does  not  bind  lnm  lat 
he  will  not  tell  what  somebody  else  said  or  did,  but  he  is  precluded 
from  telling  what  the  evidence  before  the  grand  jury  was  on  any 

subject  pending  before  them.  . 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  the  statute,  as  a  rule,  generally  covers  it 
Judge  Hanecy.  It  doesn’t  here.  In  this  Browne  case  they  called 
the  foreman  of  the  grand  jury,  and  he  testified  as  to  the  condition 
of  this  witness— as  to  whether  or  not  he  was  drunk  or  sober. 

Mr.  Austrian.  But  nothing  that  took  place  m  reference  to  his 

testimony.  .  , 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  never  was  in  the  Browne  trial. 

(Last  question  read  by  the  stenographer.)- 

Q.  In  relation  to  your  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer? 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  state.  _  .  ,  T  *  u 

The  Witness.  Does  the  committee  desire  that  I  state  what  I  testi 

fied  to  before  the  grand  jury?  .  at  v 

Senator  Burrows.  Bearing  on  that  subject. — A.  I  can  t  say  that  i1 

was  discussed  much.  .  ,  ,,  ,9  A 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  you  say  anything  m  relation  to  that  A 

About  what  I  stated  that  I  received  $1,000  from  Browne  afterwards 
Mr.  Austrian.  Let  him  state  the  entire  conversation. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  vou  state  what  was  said  upon  that  sub] ec 
by  you?— A.  I  think  about  all  that  I  said  was  that  I  received  $1,00 
that  was  supposed,  as  I  understood,  to  be  Lorimer  money.  1  thin! 
that  is  about  all.  I  was  not  before  the  grand  jury  ten  minutes. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  makes  no  difference  how  long  you  were  then 
but  what  you  said  is  desired. — A.  That  is  the  substance  of  what 

said ;  that  is,  as  well  as  I  remember.  . 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  or  second  time?— A.  The  second  time. 

6.  How  many  times  were  you  before  the  grand  jury?— A.  Wait 
that  may  have  been  the  third  time;  I  think  I  was  before  the  gian 

jury  three  times.  \ 

O  Did  you  tell  anything  the  first  time  about  whether  you  gc 

anything  for  voting  for  William  Lorimer  or  were  promised  am 

thin"? — A.  I  did  not;  it  was  not  discussed. 

Qr  the  second  time,  did  you  tell?— A.  I  really  don  t  remembe 
whether  it  was  the  second  or  third  time  that  that  particular  thin 

was  discussed  ?  *  .  ..  ,9  » 

Q.  The  second  time  you  went  was  m  the  forenoon,  was  it  not .  ± 

No,  sir :  in  the  afternoon.  . 

Q  Were  vou  taken  out  of  the  grand -jury  room  and  put  in  the  cu: 

tody  of  an  officer  the  first  time  you  went  there?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q  Who  was  the  officer?— A.  Well,  immediately— I  went  to  dmn< 

with  Officer  Keeley ;  1  went  to  dinner  with  him. 

Q,  Who  put  you  in  his  custody? — A.  Why,  the  foreman  of  tt 

grand  jury,  as  I  understand  it, 

1  Q.  Mr.  BeckemtVer,  the  foreman  of  the  grand  jury,  stated 

_  /  •  i  1  \  I  m  a  i  -i  -w-x  n  /"x  I  i  A  A  III  T7  1  T 1  O’  ft  I  l  I 


Mr.  Austrian  (interrupting).  Is  counsel  testifying.  He  sai 
the  foreman  of  the  grand  jury,  as  I  understand  it. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  241 

Q.  Was  there  any  indictment  against  you  at  that  time?— A.  No, 

lr. 

Q.  Any  charge  against  you  ?— A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Any  complaint  or  warrant,  or  anything  of  that  kind  ?— A.  No 
ir;  not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Didn’t  Officer  Keeley  take  you  out  to  a  lunch  or  to  a  meal?— A. 
lr.  Keeley  and  I  went  to  dinner. 

Q.  Did  anybody  go  wTith  you? — A.  Mr.  Keeley:  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Anybody  else? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go?— A.  To  the  Kaiserhof  Hotel. 

Q.  On  Clark  street? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  meal  did  you  get  there?— A.  I  judge  it  was  2  o’clock 
inner. 

Q.  A  2  o’clock  meal. — A.  Yes,  sir;  a  lunch. 

Q-  Mr.  Welch  was  not  with  you  then,  was  he?— A.  We  met  Mr 
Velch  at  the  hotel. 

Q.  Sitting  at  another  table?  This  Mr.  Welch  was  a  friend  of 
ours  from  your  town? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Welch  come  over  and  sit  at  the  table  with  you  and 
.eeley ? — A.  No,  sir;  we  went— Mr.  Keeley  was  sitting  at  the  table 
nd  we  went  and  sat  down  with  him. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  there  to  the  officer,  Mr.  Keeley,  and  Mr.  Welch 
bout  your  voting  for  Lorimer,  or  any  promise  you  got  to  vote  for 
iorimer  ? — A.  I  don’t  remember  now  whether  we  had  a  conversation 
t  the  table  or  not ;  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  Did  this  conversation  take  place  now  while  you  were  sitting 
:  the  Kaiserhof  Hotel  the  day  before  you  appeared  before  the  grand 
iry;  did  Mr.  Welch  at  that  time  and  place  say  to  you,  “  What  are 
ley  doing  to  you  over  there  ?  ”  and  did  you  say  in  response  thereto 

-I  •  y  ,  ,  .  ^  ^  ^  me  there  for.  They  want  me  to  tell 

anething  I  don  t  know;  ”  and  did  Welch  then  say  to  you,  “  Well  if 
m  don't  know,  what  are  you  talking  about;  you  had  better  keep 
3ur  mouth  shut,”  and  then  did  Police  Officer  Keeley  interrupt  and 
iy,  “  You  must  not  talk  about  this  case  while  with  me.”  Did  that 
>n versa t ion  take  place  on  that  occasion  ?— A.  I  don’t  know ;  part  of 
iat  did ;  yes,  sir.  ’  1 

Q.  Did  the  substance  of  it?— A.  The  substance  of  it;  yes  sir* 
rvvever,  I  don’t  think  all  of  that  took  place  at  that  particular  time  ’ 
Q.  Now,  after  you  went— or  may  I  go  back  a  moment— when  you 
ere  put  into  the  custody  of  Officer  Keeley,  did  he  receive  any  direc¬ 
ts  from  anybody  as  to  what  he  was  to  do  with  you  ? — A  Not  that 
know  of. 

Q.  TV  as  he  told  to  take  you  out  to  lunch  and  take  you  out  and  treat 

•U,  l~A;  ■ That  1  don,t  re.member;  I  think  possibly  some  one 
id,  lake  this  man  out  to  dinner.”  T  don’t  remember  what  the 
TiVersation  was  between  him  and  Mr.  Arnold.  I  think  Mr.  Arnold 
id  lie  were  at  the  door  and  I  had  walked  away. 

Q.  Whatever  the  direction  was  to  Officer  Keeley  in  relation  to  you 
as  given  by  Assistant  State’s  Attorney  Arnold,  was  it?— A.  At 
at  time  I  think  it  was;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  the  assistant  in  charge  of  the  grand  jury  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Now,  was  this  question  asked  you,  and  didn’t  the  assistant 
ates  attorney  say  to  Mr.  Keeley,  the  officer,  in  your  presence,  to 
ke  you  out  and  take  you  to  a  good  place  and  treat  you  right  and 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 16 


242  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


bring  you  back  at  2  o’clock?— A.  Well,  I  think  possibly  there  was 

something  of  that  kind  said.  .  . 

Q.  Then  Officer  Keeley  took  you  out  and  took  you  across  the  street, 

and  you  went  into  some  saloon  and  got  one  or  two  more  drinks,  didn  t 
vou « — A.  More  drinks  ?  ,  _  .  .  ,  , ,  ,  , 

*  Q.  One  or  two?— A.  I  think  possibly  we  had  a  drink  at  that  saloon. 

Q!  A  drink  of  whisky,  was  it  not?— A  I  think  so;  I  am  not  sure. 
Q.  Did  you  have  more  than  one  drink  of  whisky  ?— A.  No ,  1  think 

n°Q.  That  was  on  the  North  Side?— A.  That  was  to  the  criminal 

court  building.  .  v  • 

O  The  Kaiserhof  is  out  on  the  South  Side?— A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  walk  from  the  North  Side  to  the  Kaiserhof  House  on 

the  South  Side? — A.  I  think  so. 

O.  Did  vou  stop  in  several  saloons  on  the  way  and  get  other 
drinks? — A.  I  don’t  remember  of  stopping — I  think  possibly  we 
stopped  at  a  saloon  or  two;  we  were  trying  to  find  Mr.  Welch 
There  a  few  places  he  occasionally  stopped  at,  and  I  think  we  stopped 
in  those  places  to  see  whether  he  was  there. 

O.  Those  places  were  saloons?— A.  i  es,  sir.  .  ,  , 

Q  You  got  a  drink  of  whisky  into  each  place  you  went  into  iook- 

ig" for  Welch,  didn’t  you?— A.  I  don’t  think  so. 


mg 


g  lor  VVCILIl,  UILlll  V  J  ,  1  •  n  AT 

O  Did  the  officer  treat  you  or  did  you  treat  him?— A.  1  dont 
remember  that ;  I  think  I  bought  about  as  many  as  he  did. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  you  drank  ?— A.  VY  here  < 

Q.  At  the  different  places  before  you  got  to  the  Kaiserhof .  A.  1 

don’t  remember  what  1  did  drink.  ^  • 

O  Do  vou  remember  how  many  times  you  drank  .  A.  Wo.  s  • 

Q.  Then  you  went  to  the  Kaiserhof  and  sat  down  there  in  the  bar, 

did  you  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  saw  Welch  there.  A.  ^es,  STr*  4-11? 

Q.  And  you  and  Welch  and  the  officer  sat  at  the  same  table?— 

Aa  Did  you  drink  there?— A.  I  think  we  drank  a  bottle  of  beer 
with  our  dinner. 

O  An v thing  else? — A.  No.  .  ,  £ 

Q  Did  you  drink  anything  else  after  that  before  you  went  before 
the  grand  jury ?— A.  If  we  did,  I  don’t  remember  it;  I  dont  think 

I  d id 

QU  Then  they  took  you  back  to  the  grand  jury  room  at  2  o’clock, 
didn’t  they  ?—  A.  I  would  not  say  it  was  2  o’clock ;  it  was  after  dinner. 
Q.  For  the  2  o’clock  session? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
q’.  That  was  the  third  time?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  second?— A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  The  morning  being  the  first  time  — A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  afternoon  was  the  second  time?— A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  testified  there,  didn  t  you?— A.  Yes,  sir. 
o’  Do  you  remember  what  you  told  the  jury  ?  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  enter  the  same  objection.  • 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  you  told,  simply?—^-  1  think  1  re 

member  some  I  told;  yes,  sir.  .  ,,  , 

Q.  Did  vou  take  two  more  drinks  of  whisky  after  you 
Kaiserhof  on  the  way  to  the  criminal  court?— A.  I  don  t  think  I  did 

I  don’t  remember. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  243 

Q.  Did  you  say,  on  the  way  back  to  the  criminal  court  building 
•om  the  Kaiserhof,  to  Officer  Keeley,  “  I  would  like  to  have  you 
sten  to  me;  I  don’t  know  what  to  tell  those  people?  I  never  got  a 
nt  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  from  anybody.  They  want  me 
•  tell  something  that  I  don’t  know.  If  I  don’t  tell  them  what  I  want 
iey  will  indict  me,  and  get  me  into  trouble  for  nothing.”  Did  Officer 
eeley  then  say  to  you - 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  proper  way  is  to  separate  the  question. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Proceed  with  the  question. 

Q.  (Continuing.)  Did  Officer  Keeley  then  say  to  you,  “  Keep  your 
oubles  and  tell  them  to  the  grand  jury;  I  don't  A\Tant  to  hear  them.” 
hen  did  you  say,  “  I  can’t  tell  them  anything  about  it,  because  I 
m't  know  anything  about  it.  1  never  got  any  money  from  anyone. 
Tat  is  the  matter?  Is  Wayman  on  the  outs  after  Lorimer  elected 
m  ?  ”  Did  that  conversation  take  place  betAveen  you  and  Officer 
eeley? — A.  Some  of  it  took  place;  I  don’t  think  all  of  it  did. 

Q.  MTiat  did  not  take  place? — A.  I  don’t  just  recall  noAv  the  read- 
g  of  the  question,  but  some  I  don’t  think  took  place. 

Q.  Can  you  designate  any  particular  part?  I  would  like  to  have 
>u  listen  to  me.  “  I  don’t  know  what  to  tell  those  people.  I  never 
>t  a  cent  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  from  anybody.”  Did  you 
y  that? — A.  I  think  the  last  part  of  that  I  denied  to  Mr.  Keeley 
at  I  eA^er  got  any  money ;  I  think  that  is  true. 

Q.  Then  did  you  add :  “  They  want  me  to  tell  something  that  I 
art  know.  If  I  don’t  tell  them  AAdiat  they  AA^ant  they  Avill  indict  me 
id  get  me  into  trouble  for  nothing.”—  A/  I  don’t  think  I  said  that 
Mr.  Keeley  at  all. 

Senator  Burro aats.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  did  or  not? — 
I  am  satisfied  that  I  did  not. 

Q.  Then  did  Air.  Keeley  say  to  you,  “  Keep  your  troubles  and  tell 
em  to  the  grand  jury;  I  don’t  want  to  hear  them.”  Did  he  say 
at? — A.  I  think,  possibly,  in  talking  to  Mr.  Keeley,  he  gaATe  me 
at  kind  of  advice. 

Q.  Didn’t  he  give  it  to  you  when  you  told  him  Avhat  I  have  read? — 
I  don’t  remember  any  such  conversation  as  that  particular  part 

that. 

Q.  Then  did  you  say  to  Mr.  Keeley,  “  I  can’t  tell  them  anything 
out  it,  because  I  don't  knoAv  anything  about  it.  I  never  got  any 
mey  from  anyone.  What  is  the  matter?  Is  Wayman  on  the  outs 
ter  Lorimer  elected  him  ?  ”— A.  Well,  noAv,  the  first  part  I  think 
lenied  to  Keeley  of  ever  having  got  any  money. 

(Last  question  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

A.  I  think  I  denied  to  Mr.  Keeley  that  I  ever  got  anv  money.  I 
obably  denied  that. 

Q.  Did  you  say:  “  What  is  the  matter?  Is  Wayman  on  the  outs 
ter  Lorimer  elected  him?  ” — A.  I  think  possibly 'I  asked  him  that 
estion. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Is  that  all? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  Air.  Chairman. 

Q.  then  you  Avent  before  the  grand  lury  that  afternoon,  didn’t 
u? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  when  you  c^yne  out  from  the  grand-jurv  room  you  AATent 
wnstairs  and  met  Welch,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  met  him  some  time 
at  afternoon  after  I  had  been  before  the  grand  jury;  yes,  sir. 


244  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  You  were  still  in  the  custody  of  Officer  Keeley?  A.  Yes,  sir, 

1  I?6  And  you  were  kept  in  the  custody  of  Officer  Keeley  for  how 
long  after  that?— A.  Well,  I  think  all  that  night  and  the  next 

m  QmHow  long  after  that  were  you  in  the  custody  of  Officer  Keeley 
and*  other  officers  connected  with  the  State’s  attorneys  office'— 
A.  After  the  grand  jury  was  through  with  me  an  officer  went  clown 

home  with  me.  „ 

Q  That  is  what  I  mean.  The  same  Officer  Keeley  or  some  other 

officer  of  the  State’s  attorney’s  office  had  you  in  custody  continuously 
here  in  Chicago,  day  and  night  then,  and  after  you  left  here  and 
went  down  home  an  officer  still  kept  you  in  custody  down  there, 

didn’t  he? _ A.  An  officer  went  down  home  with  me  and  then  went 

with  me  from  home  into  Indiana  and  stayed  there  a  week.  . 

Q.  That  was  so  you  could  not  be  taken  before  another  grand  jury. 

was  it  not? — A.  I  think  possibly  it  was ;  ves,  sir. 

Q.  Up  to  that  time  had  there  been  any  indictments  for  any  purpose 

at  ail  ?— A.  There  had  not ;  no,  sir.  .  . 

Q  When  you  came  downstairs— when  you  met  Welch  alter  you 
came  downstairs  from  the  grand-jury  room— did  you  say  to  AVelcffi 
“Well,  I  told  them  what  they  wanted  me  to  tell  them,  and  didnl 
Welch ’say  to  you,  “  Well,  what  did  you  tell  a  lie  for?  ” 

Senator  Duerows.  Let  the  witness  answer  that. 

Q  After  vou  came  downstairs  and  met  TV  elcli,  did  vou  say  tc 
Welch  “  Well,  I  told  them  what  they  wanted  me  to  tell  them  ;  die 
you  say  that  or  that  in  substance? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  that  I  saic 

that,  partly,  the  substance  of  it;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Welch  say  to  you,  “  Well,  what  did  you  tell  them  a  Ik 

for?” — A.  Welch  asked  me  that  question. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  say  to  Welch,  “  Well,  I  didn’t  want  to  get  mt< 

trouble  myself  ?  ” — A.  No,  sir. 

O.  Did  Vou  say  that  in  substance?— A.  JNo,  sir. 

O  Did  you  give  him  any  reason  why  you  made  no  answer  to  hi 

statement,  “  Why  did  you  tell  them  a  lie  for?”— A.  I  gave  him  n 

le: SeiiatorSPAYNraR0! What  response  did  you  make  to  Mr  Welch  whei 
he  made  that  statement:  “  Why  did  you  tell  a  lie?  —A.  I  don  t  re 
member  that  I  made  any  particular  response  to  that  question  at  a) 

that  I  remember  of.  .  -i  j.  lur  i  u  j; 

Q.  When  you  went  out  of  the  grand-jury  room  and  met  TV  elch,  dr 

Wayman  tell  Officer  Keeley  what  to  do  with  you  ?  A.  I  don  t  knoi 

•whether  lie  did  or  not.  .  ,  ,,  . 

Q  Did  not  Wayman  tell  Keeley  in  your  presence  and  that  o 

Welch  to  take  you  and  Welch  out,  and  take  you  to  any  place  yo 

■wanted  to  go,  to  the  best  hotel  in  Chicago  if  you  wanted  it  .—A.  Ye, 

sir:  he  told  him  to  take  us  to  a  good  hotel.  ^ 

Q.  Then  where  did  you  and  Welch  and  Officer  Keeley  go  ?— A. 

think  we  went  to  the  Illinois  Athletic  Club.  „ 

Q.  And  had  dinner  or  supper  there  ?  The  evening  meal  s  A.  Y  e 

SUQ.  After  that,  where  did  Keeley  take  you?— A.  We  went  to  tt 
Grand  Pacific  or  the  Grand  Southern,  1  don’t  know  which,  and  froi 
there  we  went  to  some  other  place ;  I  don’t  know  where. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  245 

Q.  Did  Officer  Keeley  tell  you  that  some  member  of  his  family 
7 ere  going  away  and  he  wanted  to  go  to  the  station  ?— A.  Yes,  sir ; 
o  some  depot  here. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  in  Chicago  on  that  trip  ?— A.  I  don’t  re- 
lember. 

Q.  After  you  got  back  from  the  station  that  night — from  the  Union 
station — were  you  taken  to  the  Princess  Theater,  you  and  Welch  by 

)fficer  Keeley? — A.  Welch  was  at  the  Princess  Theater:  we  wanted 

a  get  Welch. 

Q.  You  went  to  the  theater  and  you  saw  the  play?— A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  You  had  several  drinks  after  that  during  that  time,’  didn’t 
ou? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  left  the  play  after  or  during  the  first  act,  didn’t  you?— 
L*.  We  didn  t  get  in  in  time  for  the  first  act;  probably  the  second  or 
iird  act  we  got  in,  and  then  left  during  that  act. 

Q.  And  you  asked  them  to  take  you  to  a  certain  place,  I  don’t  ask 
ou  where,  but  you  asked  them  to  take  you  a  certain  place— asked  the 
fficer  to  take  you  to  a  certain  place,  didn’t  you  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  To  a  certain  class  of  place;  not  a  specific  place? — A.  No  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  take  you  to  a  certain  place?— A.  I  don’t  know. 

O-  Is  that  because  you  were  so  intoxicated  you  could  not  know?— 
..  JSo,  sir;  I  was  probably — I  had  a  few  drinks;  was  probably  under 
le  influence  of  licjuoi ,  but  not  so  as  not  to  know  where  I  was  at.  I 
on  Id  not  know ;  that  was  my  first  trip  in  reality  to  Chicago  and  I 
ould  not  know  whether  the  North  Side  or  South  Side. 

Q.  You  didn’t  go  to  a  hotel  ? — A.  I  supposed  it  was  a  hotel. 

Q.  lou  afterwards  knew  it  was  not? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Q.  The  next  morning  when  you  and  Officer  Keeley  and  Welch 
our  friend,  got  up,  you  went  out  and  got  shaved  and  washed  and 
len  went  downtown,  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  the  next  morning  when  you  awoke,  is  it  not  a  fact  that 
ou  stated  to  Mr.  Welch  and  Officer  Keeley  that  you  would  have  to 
o  right  down  and  see  Wayman  and  ask  Wayman  what  you  had 
ud  to  the  grand  jury,  because  you  didn’t  remember?— A.  No  sir- 
did  not.  ’  ’ 

Q.  You  didn’t  say  that?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  in  substance? — A.  I  might  have  said  sorne- 
nng  of  that  kind;  I  don’t  know. 

Q-  Dldn’t  you  say  that  in  substance?  I  don’t  care  about  the 
>ecihc  language,  but  the  substance  of  that?— A.  I  might  have. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  you  did? — A.  No;  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  might  have? 

(No  answer.) 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  you  through  with  this  witness? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  meeting  Michael  Link,  a  member  of  the 
me  house  with  you,  at  the  office  of  the  State’s  attorney  in  the  crimi- 
d  court  building? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  A  week  prior  to  the  first  trial  of  the  Browne  case? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Link,  didn’t  you?— A.  Yes* 

•*  • 

Q.  You  and  he  were  alone  in  that  office  at  that  time,  were  you 
>tf— A.  Yes,  sir. 


246  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  You  were  over  there,  you  and  Link  5  called  there  as  witnesses 

in  the  Lrowne  case,  weren’t  you?  A.  Les,  sir. 

Q.  At  that  time  and  place  did  you  say  to  Link,  *  Mike,  our^testi- 

_  /-»  ,  •  1  1  •  ^  4 d  d  1  d  T  1  1 T  on  TT  T  A  ~\T  A 1 1  ^  Q 


monyought  to  fit  in  this  case.”  'And  did  Link  say  to  you. 


I  won’t  testify  the  way  you  are  going  to.  I  promised  to  vote  fo. 
Lorimer.  and  was  never  promised  anything  for  it.  I  told  Lee  tha 
I  would  vote  for  Lorimer  a  week  before  Lorimer  was  elected.  Anc 
did  vou  say  to  Mike  Link  at  that  time  and  place,  or  did  he  say  t( 
you  at  that  time  and  place,  “  Becky,  I  don’t  believe  any  money  wa: 
put  up  for  Lorimer  votes;  I  was  not  promised  any  money  tor  voting 
for  Lorimer,  and  I  never  got  any  money.  Yobody  ever  gave  me  am 
Lorimer  money,  or  any  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer.  And  die 
you  say  to  Link,  “  Yes,  Alike,  I  believe  that  is  right;  I  didn  t  get  an; 
money,  and  I  don’t  believe  that  Lorimer  ever  put  up  a  ruckle,  or  any 
body  else  ever  put  up  a  nickle  for  Lorimer.”  Did  you  have  that  con 

versation  with  Alike  Link  \  .  , 

Air  Austrian.  I  submit  that  it  is  improper  to  ask  a  witness  sue) 
a  question  as  that,  where  you  say,  Did  you  say  so  and  so,  and  did  h 

reply  so  and  so  to  you.  .  0  .  XT 

Senator  Burrows.  Can  you  answer  that  question? — A.  Ao,  sir, 

couldn’t  answer  that  question.  u  . 

Q.  Shall  I  read  it  separately  ?— A.  If  you  want  me  to  tell  the  con 

versation  we  had  there,  I  can  tell  you  that. 

Q.  You  met  Link  there? — A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  And  had  a  conversation  with  him? — A.  1  es,  sir;  I  can  tell  yo 

what  the  conversation  was  or  the  substance  of  it.  .  ,  . 

Senator  Burrows.  How  much  longer  will  your  examination  take 
Judge  Hanecy.  Probably  twenty  minutes  or  half  an  hour. 

Mr  Austrian.  Before  we  adjourn.  I  submitted  to  the  commute 
and  counsel  on  the  other  side  five  or  six  or  seven  days  ago  a  statemer 
as  to  the  complexion  of  the  Illinois  legislature,  as  to  the  number  c 
Democrats  and  the  number  of  Republicans,  the  date  of  the  votes,  .1) 
number  of  the  votes,  etc.  Now,  if  counsel  does  not  like  my  condensj 
tion  I  am  willing  he  should  make  one ;  that  is  the  best  I  can  do. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  asked  that  counsel  would  agrt 
upon  the  political  affiliations  of  the  members  of  the  legislature,  bot 

the  senate  and  the  house. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  in  the  record  too. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  will  take  a  recess  until  2  o  clock. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Thursday,  September  29 ,  1910. 

Committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and  the  following  pr 

ceedings  were  had :  .  ,  .  *c 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  now  please  come  to  orde 

You  may  proceed  with  your  examination,  judge. 

H.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer  resumed  the  stand  for  further  cross-examin 

tion  by  Judge  Hanecy,  and  testified  as  follows. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  you  said  you  were  at  Abraham’s  saloon  on  tj 
West  Side,  and  I  want  to  know  when  it  was  with  reference  to  t 
time  you  first  went  to  the  State’s  attorney’s  office,  before  or  alter, 
the  same  day  ? — A.  I  was  at  Abraham’s  saloon  in  the  morning,  belo 
I  went  to  the  State’s  attorney’s  office. 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  247 

Q.  You  went  from  Abraham’s  saloon  back  to  the  State’s  attorney’s 
office? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Victor  Arnold,  assistant  State’s  attorney  or 

Thomas  Marshall,  another  assistant  State’s  attorney  at  that  time? _ 

A.  I  may  have,  some  time  during  the  day;  yes,  sir.  I  don’t  remem¬ 
ber  about  Mr.  Marshall,  but  I  remember  Mr.  Arnold  particularly. 

Q.  Did  you  not  on  that  morning  deny  that  you  had  ever  received 
any  money  from  Browne  or  anybody  else  for  voting  for  Senator 
Lorimer? — A.  You  mean  denied  it  to  whom? 

Q.  To  Victor  Arnold  or  Thomas  Marshal],  one  or  both  of  them, 
assistant  state’s  attorneys? — A.  I  do  not  remember  that  I  did.  I 
do  not  think  that  I  did,  because  I  don’t  think  that  I  had  any  con¬ 
versation  with  them  that  morning. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  deny  that  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  He  has  answered  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  said  he  didn’t  remember. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  doesn’t  remember. 

Q.  You  testified  on  the  former  trial — on  the  former  trial,  the  case 
)i  the  People  y.  Browne :  “  Did  you  not  that  morning  deny  that  you 
lad  ever  received  any  money  from  Browne  or  anybody  else,”  and 
lidn't  you  answer,  “  I  think  possibly  I  did  ”?— A.  Well,  1  think  I  de¬ 
fied  it  that  morning,  but  as  to  Marshall  I  don’t  remember  that.  I 
irobably  did  to  Mr.  Welch  that  morning.  I  probably  did  at  Mr. 
Abraham’s  saloon. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  to  Victor  Arnold  or  Thomas  Marshall,  or  both  of 
hem,  either  one  or  both  of  them,  deny  that  you  had  received  any 
noney  for  voting  for  Lorimer;  weren’t  you  asked  that  question  at 
he  Browne  trial  and  didn’t  you  answer  “  I  think  possibly  I  did; 
/es.”  Didn’t  you  so  testify  on  the  Browne  trial? — A.  I  remember  the 
juestion  being  asked,  but  I  don’t  remember  that  the  question  was  as 
o  that  morning  early.  I  might  have  some  time  during  the  day. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  as  to  whether  you  did  answer  to  that  question 
>n  the  Browne  trial,  “  I  think  I  possibly  did;  yes.”— A.  I  probably 
mswered  just  exactly  as  your  notes  say  there. 

Q.  Yes;  you  probably  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  counsel  repeats  the  witness’s  answer  every 
ime.  I  don’t  see  anything  to  be  gained  by  that,  and  it  only  enlarges 
he  record  and  takes  up  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  No;  there  is  no  necessity  for  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Isn’t  it  a  fact  when  you  did  deny  that  you  had 
eceived  any  money  or  other  thing  of  value  for  voting  for 'Senator 
A) rimer  that  you  were  then  put  in  the  custody  of  Officer  Keely? 
Vasn’t  it  before  that  you  were  put  in  the  custody  of  Officer  Keely?'— 

L  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  asked  that  question  at  the  Browne  trial,  and  didn’t 
ou  answer  “  Yes,  sir  ”?— A.  I  don’t  remember  whether  I  did  or  not, 

Q.  You  don’t  remember? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  that  trial,  People  v.  Browne,  I  believe  you  told  us  here 
efore  the  adjournment  that  you  had  a  conversation  with  Link 
yer  there.  I  will  not  go  back  to  that. — A.  \  es;  I  had  a  conversation 

nth  him. 

Q.  I  am  now  calling  your  attention  to  the  same  time  that  we  were 
peaking  of  when  this  honorable  committee  adjourned.  At  that  time 
nd  place  did  you  say  to  Link  as  follows:  “Link,  our  testimony 


248  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


ought  to  fit  in  this  case. 55  And  did  Link  say  to  you.  No;  I  wont 
testify  the  way  you  are  going  to.  I  promised  my  vote  for  Lorimer, 
and  was  never  promised  anything  for  it.  and  I  told  Lee  I  would  vote 
for  Lorimer  the  week  before  Lorimer  was  elected.”  Did  that  take 
ulace  between  you  and  Link? — A.  4 hat  I  told  Link  that  that  I  told 

Lee 


Q.  Listen  to  the  question.  At  that  time,  when  you  and  Link  were 
in  the  criminal  court  building,  waiting  to  be  called  as  witnesses  in 
the  Browne  trial,  did  this  conversation  take  place  between  you  ana 
Michael  Link.  Did  vou  say  to  Link :  “  Link,  our  testimony  ought 
to  fit  in  this  case.”  Did  you  say  that  to  Link?— A.  There  was  pos¬ 
sibly  something  like  that  said. 

Q.  Did  Link  say  to  you:  “No;  I  won’t  testify  the  way  you  are 
o-oino-  to.  I  promised  my  vote  to  Lorimer  the  week  before  Lorimei 
was  elected?” — A.  There  was  a  conversation  of  that  kind;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Link  then  say  to  you:  “  Becky,  I  don’t  believe  any  monej 
was  put  up  for  Lorimer  votes.  I  was  not  promised  any  money  foi 
voting  for  Lorimer,  and  I  never  got  any  money.  Nobody  e\ei  ga^( 
me  anv  Lorimer  money,  or  any  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer.  Die 
Link  say  that  to  you  at  that  time  and  place? — A.  I  think  possibh 

Q.  Did  you  answer :  “  Yes,  Mike ;  I  believe  that  is  right.  I  did  nol 
get  any  money  and  I  don’t  believe  Lorimer  ever  put  up  a  nickel  oi 
anybody  else  put  up  a  nickel.” — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  didn’t  say  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  you  did  say  to  Link  when  Link  mad( 
that  statement  that  I  just  read  which  you  remember  that  he  did  mak< 
to  you  ? — A.  I  remember  the  substance  of  the  conversation  betweei 

Mr.  Link  and  myself.  .  _  .  T .  .  ,  ,, 

Q.  I  say,  do  you  remember  what  you  said  after  Link  made  tna 

statement?— A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t  remember  what,  . 

Q.  And  you  don’t  remember  what  you  said  m  reply  s  A.  JN  o,  sir 
Q.  You  did  sav  something  in  reply? — A.  I  think  possibly  I  did 
Our  whole  argument  at  that  time  was  which  one  of  us,  after  ou 
confession,  was  the  better  off  with  our  constituents  at  home.  Mifc 
insisted  that  he  was  a  good  deal  better  off  m  the  eyes  of  the  publi 
than  I  was.  That  was  the  whole  argument  between  Mr.  Link  and  J 
Q.  Had  Mr.  Link  also  been  indicted  for  perjury  at  that  timef- 

A.  I  think  possibly  he  had.  . 

Q.  He  had  testified  before  the  grand  jury  and  denied  lie  had  re 

ceived  anv  monev,  and  was  then  indicted — is  that  the  time? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  Has  this  committee  ruled  that  this  wit 
ness  can  testify  what  took  place  before  the  grand  jury  when  LmJ 
was  there  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  conversation  took  place. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  just  read  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  only  refer  to  that  to  fix  the  time.  t 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  it  because  it  incorporates  in  it  somethin 

we  have  not  yet  in  evidence.  .  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  not  asking,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  have  it  go  n 

u  o 

but  simply- 


Senator  Burrows.  If  you  don’t  care  about  it,  it  may  be  stricken  ou 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  249 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  direct  his  answer  to  the  time  when  he 
md  Link  had  that  conversation,  and  whether  that  was  before  or 
ifter  Link  was  indicted. 

Senator  Burrows.  Ask  him  directly,  then. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  not  a  question  before  the  witness  that  the 
:ommittee  has  held  is  proper.  He  asked  him  whether  that  was  the 
ime  that  Link  was  before  the  grand  jury  and  testified  that  he  didn’t 
‘eceive  anything  for  his  vote. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Now,  this  question  is  under  the  suggestion  of  the 
hairman. 

Q.  When  was  this  conversation  between  you  and  Link  with  refer- 
■nce  to  the  time  that  Link  was  indicted? — A.  As  well  as  I  remember 
he  conversation  that  Mr.  Link  and  I  had,  it  was  at  the  beginning  of 
he  first  trial  of  Mr.  Browne,  while  we  were  waiting  as  witnesses. 

Q.  Had  Link  been  indicted  then? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  an  answer  to  the  question.  He  said 
jink  was  indicted. 

Judge  Hanecy.  How  long  after? 

Mr.  Austrian.  After — long  after. 

Judge  Hanecy.  After  Link  was  indicted? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Six  weeks  afterwards. 

JudgeHANECY.  Do  you  know  John  Gavin? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him? — A.  Well,  John  was  at  school 
n  1904  while  I  was  there. 

Q.  Tou  knew  him  at  school  for  several  years? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  John  Gavin  while  you  were  on  Michigan  avenue, 
tear  Fourteenth  street,  during  the  week  before  you  testified  before 
he  grand  jury,  and  at  that  time  and  place  did  you  have  a  conversa- 
ion  with  John  Gavin  about  your  being  in  custody? — A.  I  had  a 
onversation  with  John  Gavin;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  at  that  time  in  the  custody  of  an  officer?— A.  Yes,  sir; 
here  was  an  officer  with  me. 

Q.  Who  was  that  officer? — A.  Let  us  see.  I  think— I  think  nrob- 
bly  Mr.  Okey. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  Okey  or  O’Keefe?— A.  I  think  it  was  Okey. 
)’Keefe  was  never  with  me. 

Q.  Okey  was  one  of  the  officers  from  the  State’s  attorney’s  office, 
ras  he?  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  the  same  custody,  with  only  a  change  of  officers,  that  you 
eferred  to  in  your  testimony  here  this  morning ;  that  is  right,  isn’t 
t? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  suppose  it  is  so. 

Q.  Did  John  Gavin  sav  to  you:  “Are  you  in  custody?  ”  And  did 
'ou  say  “  No?  ” — A.  I  think  something  of  that  kind ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Keep  your  voice  up. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  John  Gavin  say  to  you :  “  What  are  you  doing 
ip  this  way,”  and  did  you  reply,  “  We  came  up  here  to  get  away  from 
he  newspaper  men?  ” — A.  I  think  so;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Gavin  then  say  to  you :  “  Do  they  even  have  some  one  sleep 
nth  you,”  and  did  you  then  say,  “  Not  quite,  but  some  one  occupied 
he  same  room,  and  he  is  kept  at  the  hotel?  ” — A.  I  think  there  was 
omething  of  that  kind  said — that  is  the  substance  of  it. 

Q.  Did  Gavin  then  ask  you  why  you  stood  for  such  treatment? — A. 

don’t  remember. 


250  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q  Did  he  ask  you  then,  after  he  asked  you  why  you  stood  for 
such  treatment,  did  he  then  ask  you  whether  you  were  brought  m  on 
a  capias,  and  did  you  then  say  “  No?  ”— A.  I  don  t  remember  whether 
he  asked  me  that  question  or  not;  possibly  he  did. 

Q.  And  if  he  did,  you  answered  “  No?  —A.  What? 

Q.  If  he  did  ask  you  if  you  were  brought  in  on  a  capias,  you 

answered  w*  No?  " — A.  les.  .  ,  » 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  We  can  not  indulge  m  the  range  of  spec¬ 
ulation  any  further.  „  T  .  ,,  ,  ,,  ,  ,  , 

judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  then  tell  John  Gavin  that  they  had  beer 

down  to  your  town,  and  you  told  them  at  that  time  you  did  not  knov 
anything  about  the  Lorimer  matter  and  could  tell  them  nothing,  anc 
that  you  came  to  Chicago  on  a  telegram  from  the  State  s  attorney 
Did  you  tell  John  Gavin  that?— A.  No;  I  don’t  think  I  did. 


q/  And  did  you  testify  on  the  Browne  trial,  in  answer  to  the  sam< 

question,  that  you  did  tell  John  Gavin  that?  .  .  Q 

Mr  Austrian.  I  object.  There  is  a  rule  of  evidence  m  this  State 
irrespective  of  the  rule  heretofore  laid  down  by  learned  counsel  01 
the  other  side,  with  reference  to  the  rules  of  evidence  in  this  State 
that  if  you  seek  to  impeach  a  witness  by  a  question  with  referenc 
to  a  conversation  taken  place  theretofore,  you  must  put  the  time  an< 
the  place  and  the  specific  question  and  the  specific  answer. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  time  and  place— I  will  go  into  all  of  thos 
details  if  this  honorable  committee  wants  me  to  take  up  that  mud 


Mr  Austrian.  Put  the  question  and  the  answer,  though. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  asked  him  if  at  the  Browne  trial  the  same  ques 

tion  was  not  asked. 

Senator  Frazier.  Which  trial? 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  second  trial  of  Browne. 

The  Witness.  I  don’t  remember  whether  that  question  was  aske 
me  or  not.  I  don’t  have  any  distinct  recollection  of  all  the  partici 
lars  that  Mr.  Gavin  and  I  talked  about  at  that  time.  We  only  talke 
for  less  than  two  minutes;  we  just  met  on  the  sidewalk. 

Q.  Well,  what  do  you  say;  yes  or  no?— A.  Ask  the  question  agan 

O.  Did  you  testify  at  the  second  trial  of  the  case  of  the  People 
Lee  O'Neil  Browne  in  Cook  County  that  they  had  been  down  to  yoi 
town  and  you  told  them  at  that  time  that  you  did  not  know  anythin 
about  the  Lorimer  matter  and  could  tell  them  nothing,  and  that  yc 
came  to  Chicago  on  a  telegram  from  the  State’s  attorney,  and  did  yc 
say  that  to  John  Gavin— did  you  testify  at  the  second  trial  of  Browi 
that  you  said  that  to  John  Gavin?— A.  I  do  not  understand  tb: 
question  in  the  first  place.  The  question  can  not  be  answered— — 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  you  so  testify? — A.  Did  I  so  testify? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes. 

The  Witness.  I  don’t  know  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  the  end  of  it. 

The  Witness.  If  I  did  I  don’t  remember  it  now.  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  At  that  conversation,  didn’t  you  and  John  Gavin- 
at  that  conversation  between  you  and  John  Gavin  on  Michigan  av 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  251 

me  that  I  have  just  been  talking  to  you  about,  did  Gavin  ask  you  as 
rollows : 

What  is  there  to  the  story  that  the  detective  had  you  in  charge ;  claimed  the 
“redit  of  getting  you  to  confess  while  you  were  at  lunch  at  the  Kaiserhof? 

The  Witness.  Well - 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  listen  to  the  question  and  answer  it. 

Judge  Haxecy  (continuing).  And  did  you  say  it  was  not  so,  and 
hat  you  made  no  confession ;  that  you  told  them  on  the  North  Side 
/ou  never  got  anything  for  voting  for  United  States  Senator  and 
lidn’t  know  anybody  who  did,  and  that  Wayman  was  a  four-flusher  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  you  so  testify^  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  so  state  to  John  Gavin  at  that  time? 
Answer  that  and  then  I  will  come  to  the  trial? — A.  That  question, 
is  you  asked  it,  can  not  be  answered  b}7  yes  or  no. 

Senator  Frazier.  Answer  it  in  your  own  way. 

The  Witness.  He  asked  me  again  whether  it  was  Keely  that  got 
:he  confession  out  of  me. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Officer  Keely? — A.  Officer  Keely.  I  answered  to 
hat,  u  No;  it  was  not/*  That  is  one  of  the  questions,  as  I  remember, 
:hat  Mr.  Gavin  asked  me. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  say  to  him  in  your  answer  to  his  questions  that 
fveely  did  not  get  the  confession  from  you  at  the  Kaiserhof,  and  did 
you  then  add  to  that  that  you  had  made  no  confession,  and  that  you 
lad  told  them  on  the  north  side  that  you  never  got  anything  for  vot- 
ng  for  United  States  Senator  and  didn't  know  anybody  that  did? — 
U  No.  sir;  I  didn’t  tell  Mr.  Gavin  that  at  all. 

Q,  Did  you  say  to  John  Gavin,  following  up  that  statement,  that 
Wayman  was  a  four  flusher? — A.  I  think  possibly  that  I  called  Way- 
nan  a  four  flusher  that  time ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  say  that  Wayman,  the  State's  attorney,  was  a  four 
(lusher  if  he  said  you  did  make  a  confession? — A.  Well,  I  don’t 
remember  whether  I  said  it  in  that  way  or  not. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  say  that  in  substance? — A.  Well,  I  said  I  did — 
I  think  possibly  I  called  him  a  four  flusher. 

Q.  What  for?  Why  did  you  call  him  a  four  flusher — didn’t  you 
^ay  that  he  was  a  four  flusher  if  he,  Wayman,  State’s  attorney,  said 
you  did  make  a  confession? — A.  If  you  want  to  know  why  I  called 
him  a  four  flusher,  why,  the  Inter-Ocean  that  morning-- — 

Senator  Frazier.  Is  it  material  to  us  why  he  called  him  a  four 
flusher? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  but  it  is  another  method  of  contradicting  or 
showing  that  this  witness  denied  that  he  had  made  any  confession, 
but  the  publication  had  been  from  the  State's  attorney’s  office  that  he 
had  made  a  confession,  and  he  said,  “  If  Wayman  said  so,  Wayman 
is  a  four  flusher.”  I  don’t  care  about  the  offensive  term  at  all,  if  we 
can  substitute  something  else  for  it.  There  may  be  some  other  word, 
some  synonym,  that  we  can  use  instead  of  it. 

The  Witness.  I  didn’t  say  if  Wayman  said  I  made  that  statement 
that  he  was  a  four  flusher. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  say  that  he  was  a  four  flusher? — A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  you  said  as  to  why  you  thought  he  was 
in  that  connection? — A.  I  don’t  remember  the  occasion.  I  know 
how  I  come  to  use  the  term.  I  can  tell  that  very  distinctly. 


252  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  At  the  first  trial  of  the  case  of  People  v.  Browne,  was  this 
question  asked  you,  “  Did  you  say  to  him,”  meaning  Gavin,  “  it  was 
not  so,  that  you  had  not  made  a  confession;  that  you  told  them  on  the 
north  side  you  did  not  receive  anything  for  voting  for  United  States 
Senator,  and  didn’t  know  anything  about  it;  ”  did  you  answer  in  the 
first  trial  of  the  Browne  case,  “Why,  I  think  probably  ?  ”— A.  I 
don’t  know  how  to  answer  that  question.  I  don’t  know  how  I  did 
answer  it.  You  know  right  there  how  I  answered  it.  I  might  have 
answered  it  as  you  state. 

Q.  You  might  have? — A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  The  question  is  right — you  remember  that  question  was  asked 
you,  don’t  you? — A.  I  remember  there  were  a  lot  of  questions,  and 
that  might  have  been  asked  at  that  time,  but  there  were  a  lot  of 
questions  that  were  asked  that  could  not  have  been  answered  yes 
or  no,  but  my  answers  were  absolutely  restricted  to 
answer  without  an  explanation,  without  any  explanation,  but  an¬ 
swering  it  yes  or  no. 

Q.  And  did  you  answer,  “Why,  I  think  probably?” — A.  I  don’t 
remember  whether  I  did  or  not.  I  wTould  not  say  whether  I  did  or 
not,  and  I  would  not  say  for  certain  that  I  did  not. 

Q.  After  you  testified  before  the  grand  jury,  Mr.  Beckemeyer, 
didn’t  somebody  in  the  state’s  attorney’s  office  tell  you  that  you  had 

been  indicted  for  perjury? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  tell  John  Gavin  that,  when  you  did  talk  to  the 
state’s  attorney,  that  you  understood  and  believed  you  had  been 
indicated  for  perjury?— A.  I  don’t  think  I  told  Mr.  Gavin  that  at  all 

Q.  Did  you  tell  anybody  that? — A.  No,  sir;  not  that  I  know  of.  1 

had  no  reason  to  tell  that  to  anybody. 

Q.  Isn’t  it  a  fact  that  you  were  shown  an  indictment,  what  pur¬ 
ported  to  be  an  indictment  on  paper,  an  indictment  against  you 
charging  you  with  perjury? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  a  married  man,  Mr.  Beckemeyer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you,  prior  to  the  time  you  were  subpoenaed,  were  you  t 
married  man? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  were  subpoenaed  to  come  here  before  the  granc 
jury,  was  your  wife  sick  or  in  the  hospital  or  sanitarium? — A.  les 

sir. 

Q.  She  was  very  sick,  wasn’t  she?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  that  time,  or  just  prior  to  it,  at  about  that  time,  or  jus 
prior  to  that  time,  a  very  serious  operation  had  been  performed  upoi 
her,  had  it  not?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object;  I  object.  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  you  were  very  much  troubled  at  that  time 
weren’t  you,  about  your  wife’s  health,  and  your  family  difficulties 
at  the  time  you  came  up  here  to  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  sent  for  several  times  by  friends  of  yours,  m 
Welch,  by  friends  and  others  to  come  home  because  of  the  ver 
serious5  illness  of  your  wife,  and  her  probable  insanity  or  death?  A 
No;  I  don’t  remember  that. 

Q.  Were  you  told  that  she  was  very  sick  and  you  were  needed  a 
home? — A.  I  think  there  was  one  time  that  they  said  for  me  to  com 

home?  v 

Q.  It  was  when  you  wTere  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  ?  A.  1  es,  sn 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  253 

Q.  When  was  that  with  reference  to  the  time  vou  testified  before 
he  grand  jury?— A.  Why,  I  think  it  was  probably  two  weeks  after 
hat.  I  am  not  sure.  May  be  a  week  or  something  like  that. 

Q.  It  was  a  fact,  that  your  wife  wras  very  dangerous _ 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  witness  has  gone  over  that.  Repeating  it  does 
lot  make  it  any  worse. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Redirect  examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  how  many  times  did  you  testify  before 
he  grand  jury  with  reference  to  the  $1,000  concerning  which  you 
ave  testified  on  direct  examination  ? — A.  I  only  testified  about  that 
nee,.  I  think  that  is  right, 

Q.  Bid  you  ever  change  your  testimony  before  the  grand  jury  on 
hat  subject? — A.  I  don’t  think  that  I  changed  it  particularly  I 
rent  back  to  make  some  explanation  about  it. 

Q.  Did  you  testify  before  the  grand  jury  you  had  received  $1,000 
i  the  same  wTay  that  you  testified  to  it  here?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  testimony  you  gave  before  the  grand  jury  on  the  first  visit 
efore  the  grand  jury  pertained  to  whether  or  not  you  were  in  St 
-ouis  on  the  8th  day  of  July,  1909?— A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  all. 

Q.  The  21st  day  of  July  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Lorimer  vote  or  Lorimer  monev 
t  all  ?— A.  No,  sir.  J 

Q-  You  testified  upon  that  occasion  that  you  were  not  there? _ 

.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  indicted  or  threatened  with  an  indictment  for  per- 
iry  and  you  went  back  before  the  grand  jury  and  corrected  your  tes- 
mony,  didn’t  you?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  stated  that  you  had  been  in  St.  Louis  at  the  time,  July  21, 
if  I  have  the  date  right,  July  15;  is  that  a  fact? — A.  In  substance, 
>methmg  like  that. 

Q.  Didn’t  you,  upon  that  second  investigation  before  the  grand 
iry,  tkU  the  state’s  attorney  that  the  hotel  registers  in  the  Southern 

otel  would  disclose  the  two  times  you  had  been  in  St.  Louis? _ A. 

es,  sir ;  in  substance  that ;  yes,  sir. 

Q,  Upon  your  suggestion  and  direction  were  not  the  hotel  regis- 
rs  of  the  Southern  Hotel  procured? — A.  I  don’t  know  whether  it 
as  my  suggestion.  I  know  they  were  afterward  procured. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  hotel  registers  of  the  Southern  Hotel  of 
ine,  1909,  and  tell  this  honorable  committee  whether  or  not  you  can 
entity  the  signature  I  am  now  pointing  to? — A:  I  can;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Whose  signature  is  that?— A.  Mr.  Browne’s. 

Q.  What  Browne  ? — A.  Lee  O’Neil  Browne. 

Q.  Under  date  of  June  21,  1909?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  the  day  you  were  in  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  met  Lee  O’lSeil  Browne  at  the  Southern  Hotel? — A.  Yes 
* » • 

Q.  And  received  the  thousand  dollars  you  have  heretofore  testified 
>?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  his  going  over  the  same  thing  again 
id  again,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen. 


254  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr  Austrian.  I  have  not  gone  over  it.  I  have  not  gone  over  what 
was  testified  before  the  grand  jury  at  all.  That  was  brought  on  by 
a  new  rule  of  evidence  adduced  by  counsel  on  the  other  -side. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  are  asking  him  to  repeat  what  he  told  you 

°\lr!  Austrian.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  look  at  the  page  of  the  hotel  regis¬ 
ter  of  the  Southern  Hotel  of  July  15,  1909,  the  day  referred  to  by 
you  on  the  day  you  received  the  $900.^  Do  you  recognize  the  signa¬ 
ture  there  of  Robert  E.  Y  ilson? — A.  \es,  sir.  — 

Q.  Was  that  the  day  that  you  did  receive  the  $900  at  the  Southern 


IIQdMr.ABeckemeyer,  while  you  were  up  here  in  the  custody  of  an 
officer  did  you  go  home,  to  your  home  town,  and  stay  there  .  A.  1  es, 

&1IQ.  And  you  went  as  and  when  you  wanted  to,  didn’t  you?— A.  \es, 

S11r>  Were  there  anv  threats  or  duress  used  upon  you  for  the  purpose 
of  making  you  tell  anything  with  reference  to  the  Lornner  payment 
of  money  that  you  have  testified  to  here  ?-A  There  was  not.  > 
q  Or  either  by  the  state’s  attorney  or  the  officer  m  whose  keeping 

you  were? — A.  Y05  there  was  not.  9  a  Vo«j 

v  Q.  Did  you  tell  the  truth  then,  as  you  have  told  it  now  .—A.  Yes, 

S11G.  And  your  troing  before  the  grand  jury  on  the  third  visit  and 
thaY  as  I  understand  you,  was  the  only  time  with  reference  to  whic 
you  have  testified  about  the  $1,000  Lornner  money— were  you  asked 
to  go  before  the  grand  jury  on  that  occasion,  or  did  you  voluntarily 
„o ?__A  I  asked  permission  to  go  before  the  grand jury. 

8  Mr  Austrian?  That  is  all.  Just  one  point.  I  desire  to  submit 
(hat  this  committee  was  misled  by  the  statement  as  to  the  rule  of  evi¬ 
dence  in  this  State  with  reference  to  testimony  before  a  grand  jury. 
I  nersonallv  do  not  care  whether  that  stays  in  or  goes  out,  but  I  de¬ 
sire  so  there  will  be  no  question  about  it,  that  this  committee  may 
know  the  law  was  not  as  stated  by  opposing  counsel,  but  I  have  the 
law  on  this  subject,  if  they  should  desire  to  hear  it. 

Tudo-e  Hanecy.  The  testimony  did  not  go  in. 

Mr. Austrian.  The  testimony  did  go  in,  and  I  have  it  before  me 
Senator  Burrows.  The  matter  in  controversy  is  the  law.  Read  it 

t0Mr!f  AusStr^n0°I ’wifi  read  from  the  case  of  GitcheU  «.  The  People 

( 146  Ill.,  183).  It  reads  [reading] : 

The  statutory  injunction  of  secrecy  as  to  “  how  any  member  °f  tbe  lury  vot^ 
nnhiion  he  expressed."  is  in  line  with  the  general  policy  of  the  lav 

HMlSMIM 

by  subornation  of  perjury  (1  Greenl.  on  Ev.,  sec.  2o2). 

Then  it  goes  on  to  give  the  reasons,  and  it  says;  I  will  just  read  1 
[reading- 


Tho  s‘inie  principle,  which  forbids  disclosure  by  the  grand  jurors, 
all  persons  anthorizYd  by  law  to  be  present  in  the  grand  jury  rooms,  whetbt 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  255 

be  their  clerk,  or  the  officer  in  charge,  or  the  prosecuting  attorney.  (The  Peo- 
Ie  v.  Hulbut,  4  Denio,  133;  State  v.  Hamlin,  supra;  1  Greenl.  on  Ev.,  sec.  252.) 

Then  it  cites  the  case  of  State  v.  Hamlin: 

It  was  contended  upon  the  argument  in  the  case  of  The  State  v.  Fassett 
lat  the  witnesses  called  before  the  grand  jury,  as  they  were  not  sworn  to 
icrecy,  might  testify  to  what  took  place  before  that  body,  although  the  grand 
irors  might  not.  In  answer  to  that  claim,  Chief  Justice  Williams  said :  “  Such 
practice  would  nullify  the  rule.  If  it  be  the  object  of  the  law  to  keep  secret 
le  proceedings  before  the  grand  jury,  it  is  necessary  that  the  law  should 
upose  silence  upon  those  whom  it  compels  to  be  before  them.  If  it  intends 
ley  shall  be  public,  then  the  doors  of  the  grand-jury  room  as  well  as  of  the 
>urt  room  should  be  open  to  all.  If  others  called  there  by  law  may  testify 

►  what  took  place  within  those  walls,  it  would  be  idle  to  close  the  mouths 

the  grand  jury  *  *  *.  And  we  can  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that 

le  principle  which  would  prevent  disclosure  by  a  grand  juror  must  extend 

>  all  persons  required  by  law  to  be  present ;  for  such  persons  are  equally 
iterested  in  the  administration  of  the  penal  law.  (1  Greenl.  Ev.,  sec.  288.) 
hey  are  not  permitted  to  disclose  who  agreed  to  find  the  bill  of  indictment, 

who  did  not  agree ;  nor  to  detail  the  evidence  on  which  the  accusation  was 
>unded.” 

That  is  the  law  in  this  State,  and  it  has  never  been  departed  from. 
Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  the  doctrine  in  t\e 
rst  case,  the  146th,  is  exactly  what  I  said  was  the  law  in  this  State, 
lat  no  grand  juror,  how  he  voted  or  how  any  other  grand  juror 
oted.  That  goes  further,  and  says  that  no  state’s  attorney  or  anv- 
ody  required  by  law,  etc.,  and  the  rest  of  that  is  mere  dicta ,  and 
jr  reports  are  full  of  dictums ,  and  there  is  not  an  important  case 
i  the  books  of  this  State,  hardly,  which  has  not  been  changed,  modi- 
ed,  or  either  reversed  or  taken  back  again  in  some  other  case. 
Senator  Burrows.  Is  Michael  S.  Link  in  the  room? 

(No  response.) 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  are  you  through? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Just  a  minute.  You  answered  Mr.  Austrian  that 
on  did  know,  or  you  did  hear,  that  there  was  an  indictment  found 
gainst  you;  is  that  a  fact? — A.  No;  I  didn’t  answer  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  have  the  reporter  read  back?  I  thought 
iat  question  was  asked  by  Mr.  Austrian. 

The  Witness.  If  I  did  I  did  not  understand  the  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  said  yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  said,  “  threatened  indictment.” 

The  Witness.  I  think  that  I  did  answer. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  were  you  threatened  with  an  indictment  by 
ie  grand  jury? — A.  Well,  not  by  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  Did  somebody  tell  you  that  the  grand  jury  would  indict  you? — 

.  Mr.  Arnold  talked  about  that  to  me. 

Q.  Mr.  Arnold  is  the  assistant  state’s  attorney. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  appears  already.  It  is  already  in. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  was  then  in  charge  of  the  grand  jury. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  has  been  testified  to  twice  now. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  that  is  the  same  man,  Arnold? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  He  told  you  you  would  be  indicted,  didn’t  he? — A.  I  don’t  know 
hether  he  told  me  direct  that  I  would,  but  it  was  all  in  a  conversa- 
on  that  he  said  that  it  could  be  done. 

Q.  You  understood  that  was  probable?— A.  That  was  about  the 
W  he  put  it  at  me,  yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 


256  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Senator  Frazier.  Just  a  few  questions. 
Senator  Burrows.  Very  well. 


By  Senator  Frazier: 

Q.  What  did  Mr.  Browne  give  you  $1,000  for  on  the  21st  c 
June?— A.  I  could  not  tell  you,  except  at  the  time  he  gave  me  th 
money  he  made  the  statement  that  I  mentioned  before. 

Q.  What  was  that?— A.  “  Here  is  the  Lorimer  money,  and  thei 

will  be  some  more  in  a  few  weeks.” 

Q.  u  Some  more  in  a  few  weeks?”— A.  Yes;  as  I  remember  tha 
was  his  statement.  I  was  only  with  Him  in  that  room  for  fi\ 
minutes. 

Q.  And  you  understood  that  this  $1,000  was  paid  to  you  m  coi 
sequence  of  your  having  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United  Statt 
Senator? — A.  Well,  I  could  not  possibly  infer  anything  else. 

Q.  When  you  first  had  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Browne,  yc 
say.  prior  to  the  time  you  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  was  there  anythin 
said  by  him  in  that  conversation  with  reference  to  your  receivin 
anything  for  your  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir;  there  was  no 

Q.  Was  there  at  any  time  before  you  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — -1 
No,  sir;  there  was  not. 

Q.  By  either  Mr.  Browne  or  by  anybody  else? — A.  No,  sir;  the] 


was  not.  i  .  _  .  .. 

Q.  And  when  Mr.  Browne  met  you  at  the  station,  I  believe  yc 

called  it  Starved  Rock?— A.  Yes,  sir;  Starved  Rock,  somewhere  oi 

here  on  the  Illinois  Central. 

Q.  As  I  recall  your  answer,  I  believe  he  told  you  he  would  have 
package  for  you?— A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  right. 

Q.  Was  there  any  explanation  made  there  as  to  what  that  packaj 
would  contain,  or  what  it  would  be  given  to  you  for? — A.  No,  si 
nothing  at  all ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Nothing  at  all? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  any  questions  at  all? — A.  I  did  not  ask  any  que 


tions  at  all. 

Q.  None  whatever? — A.  No. 

Q.  Did  he  have  any  occasion  to  give  you  a  package  ? — A.  Ao,  s: 
Q.  Did  you  have  any  dealings  with  him  that  would  call  for  tl 
delivery  of  anv  package? — A.  No;  not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Some  days  after  that  you  received  a  communication  from  M 
Browne  to  meet  him  in  St.  Louis  on  the  21st  of  June?  A..  \  es. 

Q.  In  response  to  that  communication  you  did  meet  him? — A. 


Q.  At  that  time  he  gave  you  $1,000,  with  a  statement  that  it  w 

the  Lorimer  money  ? — A.  Yes.  .  , 

Q.  Did  you  take  that  money  and  keep  it? — A.  les,  sir;  I  did  t 

awhile. 

Q.  And  you  used  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  your  own  benefit  ? — A.  1  es,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  never  gave  it  back  to  Browne  or  anybody  else?— 

No.  sir.  .  .  I 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson  communicated  with  vou  for  you  to  meet  him  in  „ 

Louis  on  the  15th  day  of  July,  and  you  responded  to  that  conimui 

cation? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  257 

Q.  Did  he  make  any  explanation  as  to  whether  he  was  represent- 
ng  Browne  or  anybody  else  in  giving  you  that  $900? — A.  Well,  I 
lon’t  know  that  he  made  any  particular  reference  that  he  did  repre¬ 
sent  Mr.  Browne.  However,  I  knew - 

IQ.  What  did  he  say  ? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  that  there  was  a 
treat  deal  said.  But  I  believe  he  did  say,  “  Browne  is  sick  and  he 
ould  not  come  ” — I  think  so. 

Q.  Browne  was  sick  and  he  could  not  come? — A.  Yes:  something 
>f  that  kind. 

Q.  What  did  he  give  you  the  $900  for  on  that  occasion? — A. 
Nothing  said  whatever. 

Q.  What  did  he  give  it  to  you  for,  as  a  matter  of  fact — did  he  owe 
ou  anything? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Why  did  he  give  you  the  $900? — A.  I  don’t  know;  he  just 
landed  it  to  me. 

Q-  M  hy  were  you  taking  that  $900,  then? — A.  Well,  I  can  answer 
hat  by  saying  that  I  had  heard  at  times  before  that  there  was  such 
Kings  as  a  divide-up  after  each  session  of  the  legislature. 

Q.  A  divide-up  of  what  ? — A.  Of  some  money. 

Q.  What  money,  and  what  for? — A.  Well,  I  didn’t  know  particu- 
arly. 

Q.  TV  ell,  what  for  ? — A.  I  can’t  explain.  I  never  went  into  all  of 
he  why-for’s  about  this.  * 

Q.  It  was  sufficient  to  you  that  you  got  the  money,  was  it? — A. 
fell,  I  did  get  it  and  took  it ;  yes. 

Q.  You  asked  no  explanations  and  made  none? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  simply  got  the  $900  and  took  it  away  with  you? — A.  Yes, 

ir. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  voting  for  Lorimer  on  that  occa- 
ion? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  any  part  of  the  Lorimer  money? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  make  any  explanation  about  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  only  thing  he  said  was  that  Mr.  Browne  was  sick  and  could 
ot  come,  and  he  was  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  or  any  other  Kepublican 
ntil  the  26th  of  May  when  you  cast  your  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? — 
..  For  Senator  you  mean? 

Q.  For  Senator  I  mean. — A.  No;  I  had  not. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  the  $900  and  use  that  the  same  as  the  other?— A. 
res,  sir. 

Q.  For  your  own  benefit? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  list  of  names  Mr.  Browne  presented  to  you  on  the  24th, 
believe  you  stated  the  date  to  be,  that  you  had  a  conversation  with 
im  with  respect  to  voting  for  Lorimer— did  that  contain  the  names 
f  the  several  gentlemen,  Mr.  Link  and  Mr.  Holstlaw,  those  gentle- 
len  whose  names  have  been  mentioned  here,  as  having  gotten  a 
art  of— alleged  to  have  gotten  a  part  of  this  fund? — A.  I  don’t 
-ally  remember.  I  think  it  did  though.  I  think  it  had  a  goodly 
umber  that  was  a  majority  of  the  Democrats  on  the  list,  but  I  have 
ot  the  specific  names;  the  specific  names  I  would  not  know. 

(  Q-  You  said  to  Mr.  Browne,  as  I  understand,  that  you  found  that 
II  of  the  boys  were  going  to  vote  that  way,  and  you  would  go  with 
lcm  ? — A.  Yes. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  01-3 - 17 


258  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORI  MEL. 


Q.  You  were  going  with  your  gang  wherever  it  went?— A.  Yes.i 
Q.  As  a  result  of  that  you  took  this  $1,000?— A.  Yes,  sir 
Q.  And  you  understood  it  was  because  of  your  vote  tor  Mr. 
Lorimer ? — A.  That  is  what  I  understood,  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question. 

Q.  This  was  the  second  term  you  had  served  m  the  legislature, 

wasn’t  it? — A.  Tes,  sir.  .  , 

6.  After  the  expiration  of  the  first  term  was  there  any  sum  of 

money  to  be  divided  among  the  members?— A.  I  heard  that  there  was. 
Q.  But  you  didn’t  participate  in  it?— A.  I  did  not. 

By  Senator  Paynter: 

Q  How  long  did  you  remain  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  after 
you  first  appeared  here  before  the  grand  jury?— A.  Do  you  mem 

after  I  appeared  before  the  grand  jury? 

Q  Yes  How  long  did  the  officer  continue  to  be  with  you  as  yoi 
#  have  described  after  you  first  appeared  here  before  the  grand  jury  ?- 
A.  Well,  there  was  an  officer  went  down  home  with  me  and  he  stayec 
down  at  Carlyle,  my  home  town,  all  the  time  I  was  home. 

Q.  I  have  really  forgotten  the  date  when  you  first  appeared  here.— 

A.  1  don’t  know  exactly.  _  ,  ,  . 

Q.  Give  it  to  me  approximately. — A.  It  was  the  first  week  m  May! 

Q.  In  May? — A.  Yes. 

O.  And  he  stayed  with  you  how  long  did  you  say;  until  wha 
A.  I  don't  remember  when  the  first  Browne  trial  was  now 
the  exact  date,  but  it  was  until  that  time.  He  did  not  stay  with  mej 

but  he  was  in  my  home  town.  ,  „  A 

Q.  I  know,  but  was  it  a  week,  or  two  weeks,  or  how  long .  A 

Several  weeks. 

Q.  Several  weeks?— A.  Yes;  several  weeks. 

Q.  Did  the  officer  stay  with  you  from  the  first  to  the  second  trial  s- 

You* have  not  been  in  custody,  then,  since  the  first  trial?—  A 
No  sir 

Q.  You  testified  at  the  first  trial?— A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q  You  had  'rone  on  record  in  a  statement  as  to  what  you  claime 
to  know  about  this  matter  in  the  first  trial?— A.  I  don’t  understan 


that. 


Q.  I  say  you  had  made  a  record  of  your  testimony  in  the  firs 
Browne  trial? — A.  ^  es. 

Q.  So,  after  that  time  no  officer  remained  with  you  ?  A.  l  es. 

Q,  Why  did  you  go  out  of  the  State,  I  would  like  to  know  ?—  i5 
Well .  there  were  several  reasons  why  I  went  out  of  the  State 

Q,  You  said  something— I  don’t  care  about  every  reason,  but  yo 
said  something  about  in  order  not  to  be  a  witness  before  the  gran 
jury? — A.  That  was  the  Springfield  grand  jury. 

Q.  That  was  the  Springfield  grand  jury?— A.  Tes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  suggested  that  you  leave  the  State?— A.  Well,  there  ws 
not  anyone  in  particular  suggested  that  I  leave  the  State. 

Q.  Who  went  with  you  ?— A.  I  think  Mr.  Mermame. 

Q.  Who  is  he?—  A.  Mr.  Mermaine? 

Q.  Yes? — A.  He  is  an  officer  out  of  the  state  s  attorney  s  office. 

Q.  It  is  he  who  kept  you  from  being  summoned  before  the  Spring 
field  grand  jury  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  259 

Senator  Burrows.  How  long  did  you  remain  there? — A.  In  In¬ 
diana  ? 

Q.  Yes  ? — A.  I  think  I  was  there  nearly  a  whole  week. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  And  the  other  officer,  did  he  take  you  out  of  this  State  in  other 
States? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  go  into  the  State  of  Wisconsin? — A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  Minnesota? — A.  No. 

Q.  Y  ou  were  in  the  custody  of  some  one  of  the  officers  of  the  state’s 
attorney’s  office  until  after  the  first  trial  of  People  v.  Browne  Avas 
finished,  weren’t  you? — A.  Yes;  I  guess  I  was. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  answer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  How  long  after  that? — A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  You  were  let  go  from  the  custody  of  the  State’s  attorney's  officer 
liter  the  trial  was  finished? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that;  he  testified  to  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  has  testified  so. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  trial  was  finished  on  the  30th  of  June  this 
rear? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  probably  that  is  the  date. 

Q.  Now,  at  the  time  of  the  first  Browne  trial  at  which  you  say  you 
estified,  did  you  testify  that  the  $1,000  or  any  other  money  that  you 
;ay  you  got  from  Browne  or  Wilson  was  Lorimer  money  ?— A.  Did  I 
;ay  that,  do  you  mean? 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  at  the  first  trial  ? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Ton  are  sure  about  that? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Is  it  a  fact  that  you  did  not  mention  that  it  was  Lorimer  money 
mtil  the  second  trial? — A.  No,  sir;  I  remember  that  very  distinctly. 

Q.  Now,  you  said,  in  answer  to  Senator  Frazier,  you  understood 
mu  were  getting  $1,000  for  your  vote.  I  didn’t  understand,  and  I 
lon't  know  whether  this  honorable  committee  did,  whether  you  meant 
o  be  understood  as  saying  you  understood  before  you  got  the  money 
hat  you  were  going  to  get  it  for  that,  or  you  were  to  get  it  for  that. — 
V.  I  don't  understand:  I  don’t  understand  the  question. 

Q.  You  did  not  understand  before  the  money  was  paid  to  you  that 
rou  were  to  be  paid  that  $1,000  or  any  other  sum  for  voting  for  Lori- 
ner,  did  you? — A.  No. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  was  the  answer? — A.  No. 

Senator  Frazier.  Your  response  to  me  was  at  the  time  vou  received 
he  money  you  so  understood  it? — A.  That  was  so  understood. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  desire  to  ask  the  judge  a  question.  You  speak 
I  men  being  in  custody.  Nothing  is  said  as  to  the  character  of  the 
barge  against  them,  or  whether  there  is  any  charge,  whether  they  are 
ndicted  or  not.  Can  it  be  possible  that  there  is  any  law  that  author- 
res  an  officer  to  take  possession  of  a  man  and  escort  him  about  where 
liere  is  no  charge  against  him? 

Judge  Hanecy.  To  law  whatever  in  this  country,  Senator. 

Senator  FIeyburn.  It  seems  very  singular. 

Senator  Paynter.  Is  there  any  fund  in  the  district  attorney’s  office 
or  purposes  like  that? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  but  there  is  a  large  contingent  fund,  and  then 
lie  State’s  attorney,  whenever  he  wants  any  more  money,  he  goes  to 


260  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

the  county  board  and  asks  for  an  appropriation  for  another  sum  or 
other  sums  for  a  contingent  fund,  and  he  spends  that  fund  as  he 

thinks  best.  .  ~ 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  desire  to  finish  my  question  to  you,  Mr.  Coun¬ 
sel.  The  testimony  taken  under  duress,  while  a  man  is  not  free  to 
come  and  go,  is  one  character.  Then,  testimony  taken  by  a  citizen 
who  is  not  under  duress  is  another.  Is  it  intended  by  asking  these 
questions  to  imply  that  this  man  is  not  a  free  person,  or  that  he  is  I 

acting  under  duress?  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  my  intention  to  imply  and  insist  that  he, 

when  he  testified  before  the  grand  jury  and  testified  in  the  two 
Browne  trials,  what  he  did  testify  to  there,  that  he  did  it  under 
duress,  and  the  very  purpose  of  the  state’s  attorney  and  those  back 
of  the  prosecution  who  had  to  do  with  putting  him  in  custody  was 
to  make  him  understand  that. 

Senator  Heyburn.  When  you  say  he  was  under  duress,  do  you 
mean  to  say  there  were  charges  preferred  against  him  and  that  he 

had  been  arrested  pursuant  to  this  charge  ?  # 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  Mr.  Senator.  I  asked  him  specifically  it  he 
knew  he  was  indicted,  or  if  there  was  any  charge  or  complaint  or 
anything  else  against  him  anywhere  else,  and  he  said  no. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Then  it  was  physical  and  not  legal  duress. 
Judge  Hanecy.  It  was  physical  duress. 

Senator  Heyburn.  That  is  all  I  want  to  know. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  may  ask  an  additional  question  that  may  throw 

additional  light  upon  it, 

Q.  Who  paid  your  expenses  to  these  different  places  on  these  dif¬ 
ferent  trips  that  you  took  and  during  the  entire  time  from  the  time 
vou  went  into  custody,  about  the  first  week  in  May,  until  after  the 
30th  of  June?— A.  My  hotel  bills  were  paid  by  the  officer  who  was 
with  me.  So  far  as  little  incidental  expenses  were  concerned,  I  paid 

them  myself.  _  „ 

Q.  That  is,  the  officer  permitted  you  to  spend  some  ot  youi 

money?— A.  Well,  I  did  pay  it,  anyway. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  ordered  you  into  the  custody  of  an  officer  ? 
Judge  Hanecy.  He  has  already  told  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  did  lie  tell?  # 

Senator  Burrows.  If  there  is  any  question,  tell  about  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  ordered  you? — A.  No  one  that  I  know  of.  II 
the  committee  would  like  to  know  how  I  came  to  be  in  the  custody  ol 

an  officer,  I  will  tell  them.  .  J 

Mr.  Austrian.  Tell  it,  Air.  Beckemeyer .— A.  Air.  Wayman  askec 
me  if  T  would  not  like  to  have  an  officer  go  with  me  down  home.  m 
talked  the  matter  over  in  Mr.  Wayman’s  office  and  several  propositions 
were  put  bv  the  state’s  attorney  as  to  fellows  talking  to  me  am 
o-etting  up  impeaching  testimony  or  probably  getting  whipped 
That  was  two  of  the  reasons  why  I  partly  requested — and  it  was  ven 
williimlv  granted,  of  course,  by  Mr.  Wayman  that  I  let  an  officer  g( 

with  me.  .  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  was  the  origin- - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment;  let  him  finish.  _ 

Senator  Gamble.  Was  this  officer  in  your  presence  during  the  turn 
that  you  spent  at  your  room,  and,  as  you  testified,  that  he  was  m  am 
about  your  home  town? — A.  He  was  in  and  about  my  home  town. 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  261 


Q,  Was  he  always  present  and  able  to  protect  your  person  ? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  lived  at  the  hotel  part  of  the  time  in  your  home 
:own? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  It  was  at  your  own  suggestion  that  the  officer  went  down,  in 
part,  went  down  with  you? — A.  In  part  it  was. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  make  any  objection  to  it,  directly  or  indirectly?— 
A  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  consider  that  you  were  under  any  duress  or  any  re¬ 
strain  t  or  anything  of  that  sort? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to,  giving  his  intention. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object,  Mr.  Senator - 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  the  theory  in  his  mind. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit,  that  in  view  of  the  awful  picture  that  was 
tainted  by  counsel  as  to  the  terrific  duress  this  witness  was  under, 
vhy  this  is  perfectly  proper.  Read  the  question.  [Question  read.l 

The  Witness.  No,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  officer  was  here  in  Chicago  with  you,  and  went 
vith  you  every  place,  didn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  slept  in  the  same  room  with  you? — A.  Part  of  the  time  he 
lid  and  part  of  the  time  he  did  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  need  this  witness  any  more? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

The  Witness.  May  I  go  home? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  and  if  we  require  you  we  will  telegraph 

The  Witness.  I  will  come  any  time  that  you  telegraph  me. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Michael  Link  here  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No.  Mr.  John  Dennis  is  here.  I  understood  from 
he  sergeant-at-arms  that  Air.  Link  telegraphed  he  would  arrive  to- 
light.  I  understand  that,  but  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  it  is 
bsolutely  correct. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  he  is  to  arrive  to-night. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understood  from  the  sergeant-at-arms  that  Brod- 
rick  had  not  yet  been  located.  I  do  not  want  to  be  bound  by  that 
tatement  as  it  is  only  my  information. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  it  is  correct. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witnesses  have  all  been  subpoenaed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  the  next  witness. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  call  Mr.  Dennis. 

John  W.  Dennis,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly 
worn,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and  testified  as  fol- 
iws : 


Q.  What  is  your  name? — A.  John  W.  Dennis. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside? — A.  East  St.  Louis,  Ill. 

Q.  What  is  your  business? — A.  Contractor  and  builder. 

Q.  Will  you  keep  your  voice  up,  please? 

Senator  Burrows.  A  litle  louder,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Austrian.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  busi- 
css? — A.  I  have  been  engaged  in  that  business  off  and  on  for  about 
iree  years. 


262  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  How  long  have  yon  known  Charles  A.  White? — A.  Some  six 
or  seven  years. 

Q.  Hid  you. see  Charles  A.  White  in  the  month  of  June,  1909?— A. 
Yes  sir. 

Q.  Where?—  A.  East  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  this  committee  whether  or  not  you  saw  him  at  that 

time  with  any  substantial  sum  of  money  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object,  Mr.  Chairman;  I  understood  that  was 

ruled  out.  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  not  only  was  not  ruled  out,  but  was  ruled  in, 

and  the  witness  this  morning,  Kirkpatrick,  testified  to  it  where  it  was 
placed. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  was  a  specific  package. 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  is  another  specific  package. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object;  if  we  are  going  to  go  into  it— I  appre¬ 
ciate  that  this  committee  can  make  any  rule  it  seeks  to,  whether  it 
be  in  strict  conformity  with  the  rules  of  evidence  or  not,  but  there 
was  a  specific  ruling  on  this,  and  I  cited  authorities. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  the  same  thing;  the  Lorimer  money  that  he 
received  m  June;  this  witness  saw  it.  Of  course,  that  is  my  informa¬ 
tion.  I  never  talked  to  him  in  my  life.  Read  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  purpose  of  that  undoubtedly  is  to  have  it  m- 
ferred^that  that  money  is  some  of  the  money  that  he  got  from  what 

they  called  the  “  Lorimer  money  ”  from  somebody - 

Senator  Burrows.  Answer  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  Yes,  sir;  at  that  time.  ..  .  ,  9 

Mr.  Austrian.  State  the  circumstances ;  when  and  all  about  it  ?— 
A.  At  that  time  Mr.  White  and  I  were  in  the  insurance  and  broker¬ 
age  business  together.  .  .  i 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  oblige  the  committee  by  speaking  a 
little  louder?— A.  So  Mr.  White  came  from  Chicago  along  about  the 
middle  of  June,  and  there  were  some  outstanding  bills  that  were  nof 

13 a Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit  he  is  not  answering  the  question;  he  u 
making  an  argument. 

A  (continuing).  Prior  to  the  time  I  went  in  there,  and  when  Mr 
White  came  back  he  settled  up  all  of  those  bills,  and  I  saw  that  Mr 

White  had  some  money  there  at  that  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  paid  some  bills,  and  you  saw  he  had  money  ?- 

A.  Y es. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Any  substantial  amount? — A.  As  to  that  I  conic 

n°Q^aDid  you  see  how  much  he  had?— A.  I  saw  it  lying  out  on  th< 
table  when  he  was  paying  those  bills  off,  but  I  could  not  say  hov 

much  he  had. 

Senator  Gamble.  How  much?  v 

Senator  Burrows.  You  say  you  can  not  tell  how  much.  A.  JNo 

Senator  Gamble.  What  were  the  amounts  of  the  bills  that  he  paid 
were  they  large  or  small ;  I  mean  m  what  denominations  of  money . 
A.  Well’  it  wmuld  run  in  about— I  should  judge  about  $200. 


Investigation  of  changes  against  william  lorimer.  263 

Mr.  Austrian.  Prior  to  that  trip  you  have  reference  to,  when  he 
came  back  from  Chicago,  as  you  said — at  least  I  understood  you  to 
say  that — did  White  have  any  money  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object,  Mr.  Chairman,  whether  White  had  any 
money. 

Mr.  Austrain.  I  desire  to  state  the  purpose.  I  don’t  know  whether 
I  can  prove  it  by  this  witness  or  not,  but  I  can  show  that  before  that 
he  was  barren  of  money,  and  afterwards  he  had  money.  That  is  a 
rule  that  has  been  laid  down  by  the  Senate  in  all  of  the  cases  they 
have  even  passed  upon,  and  I  can  call  your  attention  to  the  ruling  in  a 
minute. 

Senator  Burrows  The  witness  has  said  he  doesn’t  know  the  amount. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  not  the  question.  Will  you  read  the  ques¬ 
tion?  I  asked  the  question,  “Before  White  went  to  Chicago,  did  he 
have  any  money?  ”  and  when  he  came  back  to  Chicago  he  did  have 
money  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  Put  your  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Before  he  went  to  Chicago,  did  he  have  the  money 
to  pay  the  bills? 

Senator  Burrows.  If  the  witness  knows  he  may  testify  whether  he 
had  monev  before  or  not. — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  had  not? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

The  Witness.  At  least  that  is  what  he  told  me. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Ah ! 

Senatoc  Heyburn.  That  is  what  he  told  you? — A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  ask  that  that  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  bills  those  were  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  bills  were  they? — A.  They  were  stationery  bills — that 
is,  for  printing;  there  was  one  of  those  bills  from  the  East  Side 
Printing  Company. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  those  the  same  bills  we  spoke  about  a  while 

ago? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  going  to  ask  him. 

Q.  Are  those  the  same  bills  [indicating  papers]  that  you  have  ref¬ 
erence  to? 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  necessity  of  that?  You  have  pre¬ 
sented  the  bills. 

Mr.  Austrian.  To  fix  the  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  Just  simply  to  fix  the  time? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Gamble.  Was  he  present  when  these  bills  were  paid? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  going  to  ask  him  now. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  intend  to  put  on  any  evidence  on  that 
question  at  all.  We  have  admitted  that,  and  I  don’t  intend  to  put 
>11  any  testimony  on  that  point  at  all.  I  don’t  care  anything  about  it. 

Senator  Paynter.  Under  that  statement  of  counsel,  what  is  the 
necessity  of  continuing  along  that  line? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  is  not  going  to  put  on  any  witnesses  to  show 
:hat  he  did  not  pay  those  bills. 


264  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  what  you  want  to  show  by  this  witness - - 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  ;  I  am  asking  him  if  he  saw  the  bills  referred 
to.  It  is  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the  date,  that  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  date  when  he  was  there  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  date  they  were  paid. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  already  appears  in  the  case. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  evidently  am  not  succeeding  in  making  mysek 
clear.  This  witness  said  he,  White,  went  to  Chicago  and  that  h< 
came  back  with  some  money  and  paid  some  bills.  For  the  purpose  o: 
fixing  the  time  when  he  came  back  I  want  to  ask  him  if  those  an 
the  bills  he  referred  to  [indicating  papers]  when  he  paid  those  bills 
Q.  Are  those  the  bills,  Mr.  Dennis? 

Senator  Burrows.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  he  went  tc 
Chicago  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understood — I  said  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  didn't  say  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  witness  said  after  he  came  to  Chicago  he  paic 

the  bills. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  had  some  money  when  he  came  back. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Q.  Are  those  the  same  bills,  Mr.  Witness  ? — A.  1  es. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Being  the  same  bills  shown  to  the  witness,  White 

That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  You  are  a  street-car  conductor  or  a  motorman,  or  were  you?- 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  a  member  of  the  union  ? — A.  Y es,  sir. 

Q,  Are  you  now? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  work  with  White?— A.  No,  sir;  we  worked  for  th< 

same  company,  but  I  was  a  shop  employee. 

Q.  And  then  you  were  a  partner  of  Y  hite’s? — A.  Not  a  partner— 
that  is,  we  were  ‘in  the  real  estate  and  brokerage  business. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  mean,  a  partner  of  White’s  in  business  there  ii 
East  St.  Louis?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judae  Hanecy.  May  I  call  Mr.  Beckemeyer  in  here?  I  understooc 
that  Mr.  Beckemeyer  said  outside  that  there  was  some  question  h 
wants  to  come  back  and  explain. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  has  the  right  to  come  back  am 
correct  any  of  his  testimony  if  he  desires  to.  TV  ho  is  your  nex 
witness  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  call  next  Michael  Link  or  J oe  Clark  o: 
Broderick. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Michael  Link  here? 

(No  response.) 

H.  J.  C.  Beckemever  recalled  for  further  examination  by  Judg< 
Hanecy  and  testified  as  follows: 

Mr.  Austrian.  Do  you  desire  to  make  any  correction  or  any  addi 
tional  statement? — A." Not  that  I  know  of. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  did  you  tell  anybody  out  in  th 
hall  that  you  wanted  to  correct  your  testimony  in  reference  to  th 


Investigation  of  charges  against  william  lorimer.  265 


•onversation  with  Michael  Link? — A.  No;  a  fellow  asked  me  a  ques- 
ion  out  there.  I  do  not  know  who  he  was - 

Senator  Frazier.  Do  you  want  to  correct  your  testimony? — A.  I 
Ion  t  know  that  I  do  particularly. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Does  it  need  correction? — A.  Only  as  to  a  question 
hat  he  called  my  attention  to  out  there — only  as  to  a  question. 

Q.  Which  one  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  called  your  attention  to  it? — A.  I  don’t  know 
riio  it  was;  it  was  some  fellow  out  there. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  was  it  about?— A.  About  a  question  in  the 
onversation  with  Mike  Link. 

Q.  What  was  the  first  conversation  with  Michael  Link,  as  you  say 
tow  ? — A.  In  addition  to  a  lot  of  other  things,  you  asked  me  whether 

did  not  tell  Michael  Link  that  I  did  not  think  Mr.  Lorimer  had  put 
ip  a  lot  of  money,  and  you  connected  that  with  a  whole  lot  of  other 
tuff,  and  I  think  possibiy  I  did  tell  Mr.  Link  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  1?  ou  desire  to  correct  your  testimony  now  in 
hat  regard?— A.  Yes,  sir;  about  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Let  me  ask  this  question,  separate  from  all  the 

thers. 


Q.  Did  Mike  Link  say  to  you — did  you  say  to  Mike  Link.  “  Yes, 
like,  I  believe  that  is  a  fact.  I  did  not  get  any  money,  and  I  don’t 
elieve  Lorimer  ever  put  up  a  nickel,  and  I  don’t  believe  anvbodv  else 
ver  put  up  a  nickel  ?  ”  Did  you  sav  that  to  Mike  Link  ?— A.  No  sir  • 
did  not. 


Q.  Did  you  say  that  in  substance  ? — A.  No.  sir. 

Q  THiat  was  it?— A.  Except,  I  think  possibly  I  said  to  Mr.  Link 
lat  I  did  not  think  Lorimer  put  up  a  cent  of  this  money  himself. 
Senator  Gamble.  That  is  what  you  desired  to  correct  in  your  testi¬ 
fy  ? — A.  That  is  what  I  desired  to  correct. 


Senator  Burrows.  That  is  your  correction  ?— A.  Yes,  that  is  the 
irrection. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  Stand  aside.  Is  Mr.  Michael  Link 
resent  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Myers,  or  Mr.  Murray,  or  Mr.  Ford,  or  Mr. 
Bradford,  W.  G.  Bradford,  are  they  present  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Bradford  and  Aldridge  and  those  witnesses  are 
ir  rebuttal. 

Senator  Frazier.  Will  you  bring  vour  witnesses  in  chief  on  the 

and  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Jhe  names  have  all  been  put  in  the  committee’s 
ands  ten  days  ago. 

Senator  Frazier.  Which  one  do  you  want  to  introduce  now? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Michael  Link  or  Joe  Clark;  those  names  have  been 
i  the  committee’s  hands  ten  days  ago,  and  it  is  no  fault  of  ours  that 
ley  are  not  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  is  not  a  question  of  fault.  Is  Mr.  Michael 
ink  here? 

Mr.  Bumphrey.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  ITe  has  been  subpcenaed? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understand  from  the  sergeant-at-arms  that  a  telc- 
am  has  been  received,  and  he  will  arrive  to-night. 


266  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

(Committee  and  counsel  confer  out  of  the  hearing  of  the  reporter.) 
Senator  Johnston.  Judge,  have  you  examined  this  abstract,  tht 
record  of  the  vote? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  the  day  we  commenced  this  hearing,  I  was 
sick  enough  to  be  in  bed ;  I  had  a  very  bad  headache. 

Senator  Burrows.  Can  you  now  examine  it? 

Senator  Johnston.  Let  them  examine  it  now,  and  put  the  par1 
they  want  in,  so  as  not  to  encumber  the  record. 

Senator  Paynter.  It  was  agreed  that  the  whole  record  should  g< 
in,  and  counsel  were  to  agree  what  constituted  the  record. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Several  hundred  printed  pages. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  think  so. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  were  95  votes,  and  that  will  cover  at  leas 
100  pages. 

Senator  Frazier.  If  you  can  not  agree  on  it,  we  will  have  to  put  l 
into  the  record  in  its  entirety. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  say,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  w 
wish  to  have  the  record  show  how  many  votes,  but  the  votes  wer 
scattered  among  the  different  people,  and  you  can  not  get  it  from  this 
Senator  Burrows.  That  simply  gives  the  total,  and  it  does  not  giv 

the  vote  as  they  occurred. 

Senator  Paynter.  If  counsel  do  not  agree  upon  what  constitute 
the  record,  then  we  will  have  to  have  a  certified  copy  made  and  g 
ahead  without  any  further  discussion  about  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  a  certified  copy  of  the  proceeding 

touching  upon  the  election  of  the  Senator? 

Mr.  Austrian.  AVe  have  two  volumes;  it  is  not  possible  to  get  i 

certified;  they  are  certified  by  the  law. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  you  can’t  agree,  we  will  have  to  have  tha 

go  in.  .  . 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  I  am  willing  if  there  are  no  mistakes. 

Senator  Gamble.  What  is  the  use  of  encumbering  the  lecoid  wit 
a  lot  of  unnecessary  things? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  reason.  .  ,  J . 

Senator  Gamble.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  previous  to  that 
was  only  four  or  five  times  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  voted  for. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Five  times.  And  I  will  stipulate  that  there  wei 
20  or  30  other  Democrats  voted  for,  and  I  will  stipulate  that,  an 

counsel  can  read  it  right  in.  , 

Senator  Paynter.  Has  counsel  discussed  the  question  together 

see  whether  you  can  agree  on  it? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No.  .  x  _  .  .,  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  the  committee  have  it  understood  that  it  it 

not  agreed  between  counsel  by  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o  clock,  th< 

the  committee  will  agree  itself  and  put  it  in. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  hope  that  the  committee  will  not  compel  me  t 
get  it  done  before  10  o’clock.  You  would  not  use  it  now  anywa; 
because  we  can  have  the  report  as  it  is  now. 

Senator  Paynter.  Of  course,  that  is  true. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  will  get  it  done  before  it  is  really  necessai 

for  you  to  put  it  into  your  record. 

Senator  Gamble.  There  is  no  hurry  to  have  it  in  the  official  recoi 
because  we  can  refer  to  it  at  any  time  right  here,  whether  conns 
consents  to  it  or  not. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  267 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  any  other  witness  that  we  can  go  on 
ith  to-night? 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  Mr.  Link  was  here,  we  could  put  him  on. 
(Committee  and  counsel  confer  out  of  the  hearing  of  the  reporter.) 
Senator  Burrows.  Can  counsel  agree  to  indicate  the  political  com- 
exion  or  affiliations  of  the  members  of  the  senate  or  the  house  who 
>ted  on  the  question  of  Senator. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  that  is  shown  in  the  record,  Mr.  Chairman. 

' hat  is  right,  isn’t  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  not  in  the  record  at  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  mean  in  the  printed  record. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  it  is  in  the  printed  record,  certainly. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  what  I  mean,  the  printed  record ;  it  is  by 
w  certified  by  the  printing.  That  shows  the  political  affiliations. 
Mr.  Austrian.  That  does  not  get  into  this  record,  though. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Oh,  no;  but  we  can  make  up  this  record.  We 
qree  that  is  right.  In  fact,  it  does  not  make  any  difference  whether 
3  agree  or  not;  that  is  the  fact. 

(Committee  confer  out  of  the  hearing  of  the  reporter.) 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  now  adjourn  until  to-mor- 
:  w  morning  at  10  o’clock. 

(Whereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  10  o’clock  a.  m.,  Friday, 
Aptember  30,  1910.) 

FRIDAY,  SEPTEMBER  30,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

At  10  o’clock  a.  m.,  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and  the 
llowing  proceedings  were  had: 

The  following  members  of  the  subcommittee  being  present:  Hon. 
•  C.  Burrows,  chairman;  Hon.  Bobert  J.  Gamble,  Hon.  W.  B.  Hey- 
irn,  Hon.  Thomas  H.  Paynter,  Hon.  Joseph  F.  Johnston,  and 
on.  James  B.  Frazier. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  hand  Senator  Gamble  the  confession 
at  was  brought  down  here  by  the  State’s  attorney  from  Springfield, 
r.  Burke.  I  just  want  you  to  identify  it  as  the  paper,  Senator 
landing  document  to  Senator  Gamble]. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Bumphrey,  can  you  send  for  Senator 
razier  ? 

Mr.  Bijmphrey.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  him  over  the  phone.  Is  Miss  Mollie  Van- 
“veer  present? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Will  the  committee  be  willing  to  call  Mr.  Michael 
ink  before  calling  Miss  Mollie  Vandeveer. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  reason  why  we  wished  to  call  her  is  because 
e  is  very  anxious  to  get  away,  and  her  testimony  is  very  brief. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  beg  your  pardon. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  and  gentlemen,  may  I  make  a  short 
pkplanation  here.  Yesterday,  Mr.  Austrian,  counsel  on  the  other  side, 
id  that  I  misstated  the  law  to  this  honorable  committee.  I  don’t 
ink  he  meant  that,  but  I  can  not  exonerate  him,  except  as  far  as  I 
n  concerned  myself.  I  told  this  honorable  committee  what  I  under¬ 
ood  the  law  to  be,  without  having  the  books  with  me.  Mr.  Austrian 


268  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMEE. 


brought  in  here  the  One  hundred  and  forty-sixth  Illinois  to  sustal 
his  statement,  I  suppose,  that  I  misstated  the  law  to  this  committe 
I  can  not  sit  silent  and  have  the  impression  remain  that  I  did  mi:i 
state  anything  to  this  committee.  I  have  the  authorities  as  late  s 
last  December  to  sustain  me  in  the  particular  position  that  I  state 
the  law  to  be  here,  and  even  go  a  little  further.  I  do  not  desire  i 
read  the  whole  opinion  in  any  case,  and  I  only  desire  to  refer  to  thri 
opinions ;  that  is,  only  those  parts  that  relate  to  this  matter. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  refer  to  the  case  of  Bressler  v.  The  People  (11 
Ill.,  p.  432) ,  and  I  read  from  page  436  (reading)  : 

One  of  the  grand  jurors,  before  whom  Frank  Bressler  was  examined  and  ga’ 
testimony,  at  the  time  alluded  to  in  the  interrogatory  quoted,  testified  direct 
contradicting  him,  and  saying  that  he  did  testify  in  the  precise  language  of  tl 
interrogatory.  This  was  objected  to,  and  the  ground  of  objection  now  insist< 
upon  is  that  a  grand  juror  would  not  be  permitted  to  testify  how  a  witne 
swore,  except  in  a  prosecution  for  perjury.  This  doctrine  at  one  time  was,  ai 
in  some  courts  it  is  doubtless  still,  the  accepted  common-law  rule,  but  we  thii 
the  rule  otherwise  is  best  sustained  by  authorities,  on  principle,  and  is  mo 
consistent  with  our  practice.  Our  statute  provides  (sec.  412,  Crim.  Code,  Re 
Stat.,  1874,  p.  498)  that  “no  grand  juror  or  officer  of  the  court,  or  other  perso 
shall  disclose  that  an  indictment  for  felony  is  found  or  about  to  be  found  by  ai 
person  not  in  custody  or  under  recognizance,  except  by  issuing  process  for  ti 
arrest,  until  he  is  arrested,  nor  shall  any  grand  juror  state  how  any  member 
the  grand  jury  voted  or  what  opinion  he  expressed  on  any  question  before  them 

The  reasons  why,  at  common  law,  the  grand  juries  were  required  to  ! 
secret  are  said  in  the  books  to  be.  first,  that  the  utmost  freedom  of  disclosu 
of  alleged  crimes  or  offenses  by  prosecutors  be  secured;  second,  that  perju 
and  subornation  of  perjury  may  be  prevented  by  withholding  the  knowled 
of  facts  testified  to  before  the  grand  jury,  which,  if  known,  it  would  be  for  t 
interest  of  the  accused,  or  their  confederates  to  attempt  to  disprove  by  pr 
curing  false  testimony;  third,  to  conceal  the  fact  that  an  indictment  is  foui 
against  a  party,  in  order  to  avoid  the  danger  that  he  may  escape  and  elm 
arrest  upon  it  before  the  presentment  is  made.  When  the  indictment  is  i 
turned,  and  the  defendant  arrested  and  placed  upon  trial,  neither  the  statuto 
nor  common-law  reasons  for  secrecy  can  apply.  There  can  be  no  reason,  the 
why  evidence  given  before  a  grand  jury  should  not  be  made  known  and  prove 
if  the  ends  of  justice  require  it.  A  contrary  course  would  tend  to  defe 
instead  of  to  promote  justice,  and  be  directly  in  opposition  to  the  tendency 
the  age,  which  is  to  enlarge  rather  than  to  contract  the  sources  of  evidem 
(See  Commonwealh  v.  Mead,  State  v.  Broughton,  supra,  and  Gordon  v.  Commc 
wealth,  etc.) 

There  is  another  case  in  the  same  volume,  the  case  of  Hoge  v.  tl 
People  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  at  page  35..  I  am  not  going  to  ti 
this  honorable  committee  by  reading  the  intermediate  cases..  Tl 
last  expression  of  our  supreme  court  upon  this  question  is  in  tl 
case  of  People  v.  Nall  (242  Ill.,  p.  284),  in  which  the  decision  th 
I  have  just  referred  this  honorable  committee  to  in  the  One-hundn 
and  seventeenth,  the  one  I  read  from,  is  directly  sustained.  I  ret 
from  page  289  (reading)  : 

It  appeared  from  the  testimony  of  the  foreman  of  the  grand  jury  and  of  t 
special  counsel  in  question  that  the  latter  was  called  before  the  grand  ju 
which  returned  this  indictment,  but  both  these  witnesses  testified  said  couns 
was  not  asked  any  questions,  with  reference  to  the  indictment  here  in  questic 
This  court  has  held  it  is  proper  to  prove  by  members  of  the  grand  jury  th 
witnesses  have  testified  differently  before  that  body  than  they  did  on  t 
trial  of  the  case.  (Hoge  v.  People,  117  Ill.,  35;  Bressler  v.  People,  117  i 
422),  but  this  court  has  also  held  in  Gitchell  v.  People  (146  Ill.,  175),  after 
review  of  the  authorities,  that  the  members  of  the  grand  jury  can  not  impea 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  269 

nir  return  of  the  indictment  and  that  the  same  principle  which  forbids  such 
i>closures  by  grand  jurors  applies  to  all  persons  authorized  by  law  to  be  pres- 
it  in  the  grand-jury  room.  We  do  not  think  the  court  erred  in  refusing  to 
I  emit  the  questions  to  be  answered,  showing  what  the  special  counsel  testified 
i  before  the  grand  jury,  or  in  refusing  to  quash  the  indictment,  because  of 
h  appearance  before  that  body.  We  find  nothing  in  the  record  indicating 
(it  there  was  any  improper  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  grand  jury  or  this 
:  orney. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  any  necessity  of  pursuing  that  question 
Irther — just  to  save  time?  The  evidence  has  been  admitted — the 
tdimony  has  been  admitted. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  not  making  it  for  that  purpose,  Mr.  Chair- 
im;  but  the  statement  was  made  here  by  learned  counsel  on  the 
:her  side  that  I  misstated  the  law  to  this  honorable  committee.  I 
Bume  that  this  committee  will  not  permit  me  nor  compel  me  to 
:  silent  under  that  charge  without  answering  it,  as  the  authorities 
this  State  have  conclusively  answered  it.  I  said  to  this  honorable 
mmittee  that  at  common  law,  and  we  are  under  the  common-law 
:actice  here— except  as  changed  by  the  statute— that  that  was  not 
.9  law.  I  had  no  authorities  at  that  time.  It  was  an  offhand  opinion 
the  law,  as  I  understood  it,  and  as  I  knew  it,  and  the  law  that  has 
:en  in  force  in  this  State  for  a  great  many  years.  Mr.  Austrian  cited 
:3  One  hundred  and  forty-sixth  Illinois,  and  he  made  the  state- 
mt  preceding  the  citation  of  the  authorities  that  I  had  misstated 
0  law. 

Xow,  all  that  I  desire  here  is  that  that  statement  shall  not  stand  as 
was  made,  that  I  did  misstate  the  law,  and  that  I  sat  silent  under 
it  charge.  I  said  a  few  moments  ago,  and  I  say  now,  that  Mr. 
.istrian  does  not  mean  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  ask  you  a  question  ? 

Tudge  Hanecy.  The  record  shows  what  he  did  say. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  ask  you  a  question  ? 
ludge  Hanecy.  With  my  consent;  yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Any  objection? 

Tudge  Hanecy.  I  have  no  particular  objection. 

Mr.  Austrian.  One  case  you  read  was  the  117th  Illinois.  The 
;th,  we  admit,  is  later.  That  is  the  case  I  relied  on.  Do  you 
an  to  tell  this  committee,  Judge,  that  the  2I2d  Illinois  reverses  or 
:>difies  the  146th  Illinois? 

Tudge  Hanecy.  It  affirms  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  the  242d  Illinois  doesn’t  say  that  there  was 
iv  error  in  refusing  to  permit  special  counsel  to  testify  to  what 
>k  place  in  the  jury  room? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  they  did;  and  went  on  to  say - 

Senator  Heyburn.  There  is  no  live  question  before  us. 

Judge  Hanecy.  4  he  case  cited  by  learned  counsel  on  the  other  side 
:one  question  and  the  rest  of  it  is  mere  dictum,  and  yesterday  I  so 
ted  after  he  cited  it.  Learned  counsel  on  the  other  side  has  quoted 
cy  liberally  to  this  committee  in  the  early  days  of  the  hearing — 
;>m  Wigmore  on  Evidence— and  I  just  want  to  read  a  paragraph 
:>m  that,  a  short  one,  on  this  question.  “  It  is  now  universallv 
needed  ” -  J 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  section,  please? 


270  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  section  2363,  the  second  paragraph,  I  rea< 
from  (reading)  : 

The  instances  in  which  the  privilege  ceases  to  operate  by  virtue  of  the  for< 
going  reasons  may  be  grouped,  according  to  the  purpose  for  which  the  testimon 

is  offered  to  be  used : 

“  (a)  It  is  now  universally  conceded  that  a  witness  may  be  impeached  m  an 
subsequent  trial,  civil  or  criminal,  by  self-contradictory  testimony  gL  en  by  hL 
before  the  grand  jury.” 

They,  in  a  note— they  cite  a  great  many  cases  (reading)  : 

In  the  same  way  a  party  to  the  cause  not  taking  the  stand  as  a  witnes 
may  be  impeached  by  his  admissions  made  in  testifying  before  the  grand  jur 

and  then,  citing  nearly  a  page  of  authorities — 

The  occasional  statutory  sanction  for  the  former  of  these  uses  can  not  be  co' 
strued  to  prohibit  the  latter,  which  goes  upon  the  same  reasoning.  Nor  shou 
anv  of  the  ensuing  legitimate  purposes  of  disclosure  be  considered  to  be  o 
structed  by  the  statutory  omission  to  mention  them,  else  the  integrity  of  coi 
mon-law  principles  would  tend  to  be  diminished  in  direct  ratio  to  the  ignorant 
or  unskillfulness  of  the  legislature  which  attempted  in  any  respect  to  make 
declaratory  statute. 


Mr.  Austrian.  Mav  I  ask  Senator  Gamble - 

Senator  Burrows.  Miss  Yandeveer,  please  stand  up  and  be  swon 

Hold  up  vour  right  hand. 

(Miss  Mollie  Yandeveer  duly  sworn.)  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  state’s  attorney  is  here  wit 
this  document— the  assistant  state's  attorney  is  here,  rather,  with  th 
document— and  he  wants  to  go  back  to  Springfield  on  the  12  o  clot 
train.  It  is  the  document  that  the  committee  called  for  yesterday, 
believe,  during  the  examination  of  Mr.  Holstlaw. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  will  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  identify  this  i 
the  same  paper  handed  to  me  heretofore,  in  regard  to  a  stateme) 
made  bv  the  witness  D.  W.  Holstlaw,  was  it? 


Mr.  Austrian,  les,  Holstlaw. 

Senator  Gamble.  Holstlaw,  on  Tuesday— W  ednesday  of  this  wee 
Mr.  Austrian.  The  committee  called  for  it — or  Judge  Hane< 
asked  for  it  to  be  incorporated  into  the  record. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  I  did  not  ask  for  it  to  be  incorporated  in 

the  record 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  any  objection  to  it  being  incorpora t 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  know,  Mr.  Chairman;  I  have  not  look 


at  it.' 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  look  at  it?  - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  take  it  that  the  Sen 
tor— Senator  Gamble,  I  believe— has  identified  it,  and  they  may  i 
turn  the  original,  providing  they  leave  a  copy  of  it  here.  Is  there 


yXr.  Austrian.  No,  sir;  read  it  right  into  the  record,  and  then 

them  take  the  original.  .  ,  A  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  Not  now.  They  brought  it  m  here  and  read  ji 

one  part  of  it,  and  that  part  of  this  statement  has  gotten  into  tl 
record.  Now,  it  may  be  that  there  is  a  lot  of  matter  here  that  v 
created  for  the  very  purposes  of  some  other  case  we  know  it  was 
reference  to  the  furniture  case.  There  is  a  part  of  it  here  that 
incorporated  into  the  record  when  he  read  part  of  it,  and  I  tv  as  nev 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  271 

ermitted  to  see  either  the  instrument  itself  or  the  part  which  was 

aken  from  it  and  put  into  this  record,  of  the  statement - 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  desire  to  identify  it  and  put  it  into  the 
ecord,  as  far  as  you  are  concerned? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  know.  I  would  like  to  have  an  opportun- 
:y  to  examine  it  when  I  have  time.  I  will  not  ask  this  honorable 
ommittee  to  wait  until  that  is  done  now.  There  are  over  four  type¬ 
written  pages.  All  I  want  is  to  have  a  copy  made  and  have  the  copy 
ift  here. 

Senator  Paynter.  Let  a  copy  be  made. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  to  read  part  of  the  record  of  yesterday. 
Senator  Burrows.  You  desire  to  have  this  original  given  back  so 
lat  it  can  be  returned  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  now,  on  page  547  of  the  official  record.  I  wish 
)  read  what  took  place  in  reference  to  this  document  Z.  Page  547 
reading)  : 

Judge  Hanecy.  Will  you  let  me  see  that  paper? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  haven’t  got  it  now. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  had  it  yesterday,  and  it  was  shown  to  the  witness,  and 
ctracts  were  read  from  it,  and  I  submit  that  we  should  have  it  accessible  here. 
Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  sorry,  but  it  was  not  my  paper;  I  did  have  it.  It  was 
paper  brought  here  in  the  custody  of  the  state’s  attorney  of  Sangamon 
ounty,  and  it  was  his  document,  and  he  simply  loaned  it  to  us. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  paper  ought  to  be  in  this  record;  it  was  shown  to  this 
itness. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  it  be  understood,  etc. - 

Senator  Frazier.  That  is  my  recollection  of  what  happened. 
Judge  Hanecy.  They  handed  the  paper  to  the  witness,  and  I  did 
at  see  it.  I  should  not  be  precluded  from  the  ordinary  rights  of 
camming  the  paper  before  it  is  put  into  the  record. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  will  you  examine  it? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Now? 

Senator  Burrows.  At  some  time  very  soon. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman;  but  shall  I  stop  now  to  do  it 
:  wait  until  a  copy  is  made. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  not  stop  now. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  what  I  desire  to  know.  If  they  leave  it 
copy  can  be  made. 

Senator  Gamble.  Let  the  official  stenographer  take  it  and  have  a 

>py  made. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  the  official  stenographer  will  take  it  and  have 
copy  of  it  made  that  is  all  I  desire. 

Mr.  At  jstrian.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  have  two  copies  made 
id  return  it  to  us  right  away? 

(The  paper  was  sent  to  the  official  stenographers  to  be  copied,  as 
iggested.) 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  you  may  proceed  with  the  examination 
Miss  Van  deveer. 

Mollie  Vandeveer,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  being  duly  sworn  by 
mator  Burrows,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and  testi- 

‘d  as  follows: 

Q.  State  your  name,  please. — A.  Mollie  Vandeveer — V-a-n-d-e- 

e-e-r. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside? — A.  East  St.  Louis,  Ill. 


272  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  East  St.  Louis? — A.  Aboui 
four  and  one-half  years. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  A.  White?— -A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Charles  A.  White  in  the  month  of  June,  1909  ? — 

A.  Yes,  sir.  .  ... 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  business  relations  with  Mr.  White  m  tha: 
month?— A.  Yes;  I  was  employed  by  Mr.  White  as  a  stenographer 

Senator  Johnston.  Speak  a  little  louder— A.  I  was  employed  n 
Mr.  White’s  office  as  a  stenographer  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Can  you  remember  any  occasion  at  which — am 
time  or  at  about  that  time— at  which  Mr.  White  had  any  consider 
able  sum  of  money? — -A.  About  the  middle  of  June  Mr.  TV  hite  cam( 

to  the  office  with  a  bunch  of  bills. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  interpose  the  objection  that  it  is  cor 
roborative  evidence,  manufactured  or  created - 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  has  passed  upon  that  question 
overruled  the  objection,  and  we  will  now  go  on. 

The  Witness.  About  the  middle  of  June  Mr.  White  returned  t< 
the  office  with  a  bulk  of  bills,  a  stack  of  bills  about  this  high  [indi 
eating]  of  different  denominations,  twenties,  fifties,  and  tens.  I 
seemed  to  be  yellow-backed  money,  this  gold-backed  money. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  committee  about  what  time  that  vas?  A 
Why,  that  must  have  been  about  the  17th  or  18th  of  June.  It  wa; 
about  the  middle  of  June.  I  don't  know  just  exactly.  . 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  money  counted  or  have  anything  to  do  witl 
counting  the  money  ? — A.  I  had  something  to  do  with  disposing  o 
the  money. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  question  is,  did  you  count  the  money :  A 
I  did  not  count  the  money. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  was  done  with  the  money  ?— A.  Mr.  W  hit 
disposed  of  it,  paying  bills  around  about  there,  part  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  any  part  of  it?— A.  I  received  $50.50. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 


Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  You  did  not  count  any  of  the  money  at  all?— A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  when  you  saw  it  and  where  was  Mr.  TV  hite?- 
A.  Mr.  White  was  sitting  at  his  desk  and  I  was  sitting  at  my  desl 

in  the  same  room,  in  Mr.  TV  hite’s  office.  , 

Q.  Where  were  the  desks  with  reference  to  each  other?— A.  Mi 
White’s  desk  was  right  here  [indicating]  and  my  desk  was  right  her 

[indicating].  .  ,  . 

Q.  Were  you  back  of  him  or  in  front  of  him?— A.  My  desk  wa 

back  of  Mr.  White.  . 

Q.  Was  this  a  flat  desk  or  cylindrical  desk?— A.  My  desk  was  s 

typewriting  desk  with  a  drop  head. 

"  Q.  And  that  was  flat  when  the  head  was  dropped  in?— A.  les,  sii 
Q.  What  was  Mr.  mite’s  desk?— A.  A  roll-top  desk. 

Q.  Closing  down? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  White  have  his  back  to  you?— A.  Xo,  sir;  he  turne< 
around  in  his  chair ;  he  had  a  revolving  chair. 

Q.  When  sitting  straight  at  the  desk,  his  back  was  to  you  ?— A 

Yes  sir. 

Q.  Directly? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  273 

Q.  Was  he  directly  in  front  of  you  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  feet  was  his  desk  from  your  desk? — A.  Not  over 
feet. 

Q.  There  was  enough  room  for  a  passageway,  enough  for  his  chair 
nd  then  a  passageway  between  the  chair  and  your  desk? — A.  I  can 
ot  hardly  explain  that ;  we  did  not  pass  between  the  two  desks.  His 
esk  sat  against  that  wall  [indicating],  and  mine  sat  against  the 
:her  wall. 

Q.  The  side  wall? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

I  Q.  His  desk  sat  up  against  the  wall,  equivalent - A.  To .  the 

>uth,  and  mine  to  the  west. 

Q,  And  yours  was  up  back  against  the  west  wall  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  So  that  when  he  sat  straight  at  his  desk  and  you  sat  straight  at 
mr  desk  your  desks  would  be  toward  each  other  very  nearly  ? — A. 
o,  sir;  his  back  would  be  toward  my  side. 

Q.  I  know ;  but  you  could  not  see  him  if  you  were  facing  your 
isk  straight  and  he  was  facing  his  desk  straight ;  you  could  not  see 
hat  he  was  doing? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  that  morning  when  you  say  this  thing 
ippened? — A.  I  was  looking  at  the  money. 

Q.  I  know;  but  had  you  been  doing  anything  before  that? — A.  I 
d  not  do  anything.  I  had  called  up  two — I  had  called  up  the 
lines  of  the  parties— called  up  the  parties,  rather,  that  he  owed 
11s  to,  and  I  had  a  list  of  them  on  my  desk,  and  he  had  wheeled 
•ound  in  his  chair  and  we  were  talking  over  matters. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  list  of  the  names  of  the  parties  he  owed  and 
e  amounts? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  did  they  foot  up? — A.  Well,  I  did  not  foot  them  up. 
Q.  Well,  about  how  much  did  they  foot  up? — A.  I  haven’t  any 
ea. 

Q.  You  can’t  give  any  impression  at  all? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  do  the  footing  up  ? — A.  I  did  not  foot  them  up. 

Q.  Did  you  write  down  the  names  or  the  amounts? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  You  wrote  down  each  one;  every  one  of  the  names  on  that  list 
ad  the  amounts  opposite? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  do  that? — A.  About  the  middle  of  June. 

Q.  Y  ou  did  that  that  same  day? — A.  That  same  day;  that  same 
W 

Q.  Now,  was  there  a  stack  of  bills — I  mean  not  many  bills,  but  bills 
'at  you  say  he  was  to  pay  the  stack  of  them — were  there  many  or 
w  ? — A.  There  were  several. 

Q.  Yes;  two  would  be  several. — A.  There  were  as  many  on  the 
“sk  as  ten. 

Q.  There  were  as  many  on  the  desk  as  ten.  Were  there  more  than 
n? — A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  What  was  the  largest? — A.  My  bill,  I  presume. 

Q.  That  was  how  much? — A.  I  settled  with  Mr.  White  for  $50.50. 
Q.  Did  you  have  a  larger  bill  than  that  against  him  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Plow  much  larger? — A.  Well,  he  owed  me  something  in  the 
;ighborhood  of  six  weeks’  work. 

Q.  In  dollars  and  cents  is  all  I  want.  What  were  you  g-ettinfr  a 
sek? — A.  $12J. 

Q.  So  he  owed  you — $12|  a  week? — A.  Yes,  sir;  $12 J  a  week. 
70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61^3 - 18 


274  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  So  he  owed  you  $75? — A.  Well,  there  was  expense  money  there 
in  the  office - 

Q.  In  addition  to  that?— A.  In  addition  to  that.  I  would  take 
out  my  car  fare  at  that  time.  I  think  Mr.  White  owed  me  something 
like  $62  or  $65. 

Q.  Well,  if  he  owed  you  for  six  weeks,  at  $12  a-  week,  it  would  be 
$75  for  that  alone? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  he  owed  you  something  more  than  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  thought  you  said  he  owed  you  for  expense  money? — A.  No; 
there  was  expense  money  in  the  office,  in  Mr.  White’s  office. 

Q.  He  owed  you,  then,  $60  ? — A.  About  $62  or  $65. 

Q.  Was  there  any  doubt  about  that,  any  mistake  about  that?— 

A.  I  don’t  remember  now.  j 

Q.  Why  did  you  take  less  than  that  amount? — A.  Well,  Mr.  White 
owed  so  much  that  I  kind  of  felt  sorry  for  him. 

Q.  He  was  settling  for  less  than  100  on  the  dollar? — A.  I  didn’t 

figure  it  up. 

Q.  You  didn’t  reason  it  that  way? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  did  not  think  he  had  very  much  money? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  willing  to  take  less  than  the  amount  that  he 

actually - A.  Wait  a  minute.  Did  you  say  I  did  not  think  he  had 

much  money  ? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  thought  that  his  bills  would  average  about  as  much 
as  his  stack  of  money.  I  did  not  know  how  much  money  he  had. 

Q.  Yes;  you  thought  that  the  bills  you  had  a  list  of,  giving  the 
names  and  ‘amounts  that  he  owed,  aggregated  more  than— as  much 
or  more  than — the  money  that  he  had,  did  you;  is  that  right?— 
A.  Mr.  White  had  other  expenses  to  meet  and  other  bills  around. .  I 
attended  to  Mr.  White’s  affairs  and  knew  about  what  his  outside 
bills  were  and  what  his  obligations  were  to  meet. 

Q.  What  were  they?— A.  Well,  he  had,  as  any  fellow  has,  ex¬ 
penses  around  there. 

Q.  I  do  not  know  what  any  fellow  has;  I  am  trying  to  get  informa¬ 
tion  from  an  expert. — A.  He  settled  with  me  among  the  first. 

Q.  yes> — A.  He  had  some  twenty-odd  bills — some  ten-odd  bills. 

He  had  counted  them  out. 

Q.  I  mean  the  bills  that  he  owed;  that  is  what  I  wanted  to  know.— 
A.  I  was  getting  at  what  my  reasons  were  for  settling. 

Q.  That  is  not  what  I  asked  you.  You  said  you  knew  what  other 
bills  he  owed  at  the  time,  from’  the  list  you  had  there.  I  asked  you 
what  those  other  bills  were. — A.  I  do  not  know  just  what  they  were. 

Q.  Generally,  what  were  they  ?— A.  I  presume  they  would  be— he 
was  living  at  two  places,  at  Springfield  and  living  at  O’Fallon. 

Q.  And  St.  Louis  ?— A.  And  St.  Louis. 

Q.  And  East  St.  Louis,  was  he?— A.  Well,  he  was  residing  at 
different  places. 

Q.  Then  he  had  four  places?— A.  Well,  I  do  not  know  of  tour 
permanent  places,  but  different  places,  and  I  knew  such  things  as 

that  took  money.  n  4  T 

Q.  Well,  did  you  know  that  because  he  told  you? — A.  No,  sir;  I 
knew  that,  from  observation,  such  things  as  that  do  take  money. 

Q.  How  old  are  you? — A.  I  am  21  years  of  age. 

Q.  At  that  time  you  were  about  20? — A.  Twenty. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  275 

Q.  Now,  what  were  the  other  bills  generally  that  you  say  that  you 
mew  that  he  owed  ? — A.  I  have  given  you  what  I  thought  they  were. 

Q.  I  mean  besides  the  list,  about  ten? — A.  Wh}7,  he  was  stopping 
it  different  places,  and  that  he  had — I  had  heard  he  was,  I  did  not 
mow  but  he  borrowed  money  there;  that  he  had  borrowed  money, 
md  I  presumed  with  this  bunch  of  money  that  Mr.  Wliite  was  going 
o  try  to  clear  up  these  outstanding  debts. 

Q.  You  knew  that  he  wmuld  not  have  money  enough  in  that  bunch 
)f  money  to  clear  all  of  them,  so  you  threw  off  twelve  or  more  dollars ; 
s  that  right? — A.  I  deducted  part  of  my  wages  and  took  $50.50  for 
;ettlement  in  full. 

Q.  Now,  you  have  told  this  honorable  committee  that  the  general 
karacter  of  the  bills  that  you  thought  he  owed,  outside  of  the  list 
hat  you  had  there;  do  you  know  what  any  one  of  these  outstanding 
)ills  amounted  to,  or  did  you  make  an  estimate  of  what  it  would 
s^rj  I  was  not  that  closely  connected  with  his  personal 

Q.  Did  you  know  how  much  the  aggregate  of  all  those  outside 
nils  were,  or  did  you  make  an  estimate  of  that?— A.  No,  sir;  I  could 
lot  make  an  estimate,  not  knowing  what  they  were. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  anything  about  that  at  all.  So  that  all  you 
tad  any  specific  knowledge  of  as  to  the  amount  of  the  individual 
•ills  or  the  aggregate,  was  the  list  that  you  had  before  you?— A. 
fes,  sir;  the  exact - 

Q.  Was  there  more  than  one  bill  of  $50,  more  than  one  liability  of 
i50  in  that  list  that  you  had? — A.  I  do  not  remember  now,  but  it 
eems  to  me  as  though  Mr.  White  paid  a  Mr.  House  a  bill. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Austrian,  will  you  give  me  those  bills,  please? 
The  Witness.  A  bill  of  something ‘like  forty  dollars— forty  some 
dd  dollars. 

Q.  Miss  Yandeveer,  will  you  look  at  these  bills  here,  and  see 
whether  these  are  the  bills  that  you  had  a  list  of,  with  the  names 
nd  the  amounts— showing  witness  list  of  the  original  bills  that  were 
•roduced  by  Mr.  C.  A.  White  in  his  examination. — A.  This,  Mr. 
>auntrz,  was  a  fellow  he  owed  for  rent. 

Q.  One  of  the  fellows,  was  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  bill,  what  was  the  amount?— A.  This  $23.60.-  The 
ent  bills  are - 

Q.  I  don’t  care  about  this.  ^  ou  said  Mr.  House.  That  is  a  print- 
ig  bill? — A.  That  is  a  printing  bill. 

Q.  I  don’t  care  about  your  reciting  each  one  of  them,  but  these  are 
le  bills,  are  they,  that  you  had  a  list  of? — A.  Yes,  sir;  these  are 
)me  of  the  bills. 

Q.  Well,  were  there  any  more?— A.  I  do  not  see  a  bill  there  from 
[enry  George. 

Q.  What  was  the  amount  of  his  bill? — A.  My  bill  is  not  there. 

Q.  What  was  Henry  George’s  bill? — A.  I  do  not  remember  now. 

Q.  Here  is  the  Henry  George  bill  of  $11.10.— A.  Well,  that  is  it. 

Q.  That  is  the  bill? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  was  there  any  other  bill  that  you  can  think  of  that  you 
ad  there,  that  is  not  here,  that  you  had  there,  or  had  a  list  of  there 

lat  is  not  here  ? — A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  there  are  any  more 

r  not. 


276  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Well,  is  there  any  other  that  you  had  there  either,  in  the  original 
bill  or  the  list  of  them,  the  name  and  the  amount?— A.  He  paid  Mr. 

Yarbrough  $50. 

Q.  Sidney  or  Otis? — A.  Otis. 

Q.  That  Otis  was  on  the  state  pay  roll  during  the  time  that  he 
gave  him  some  money  individually  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment,  what  difference  does  that  make. 
Judge  Hanecy.  He  worked  for  the  State. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  does  not  make  any  difference. 

Senator  Burrows.  There  is  no  controversy  about  these  bills,  as  the 

committee  understands  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  know  whether  there  were  some  others. 
Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  just  stated. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  did  not  know  of  any  other  bills  that  you  had 

there,  except - A.  I  do  not  remember - 

Q.  (Continuing).  - besides  yours  and  Yarbroughs?— A.  It 

appears  to  me  theTist  was  longer  than  that  would  make  a  list  of,  with 
mine  and  Yarbrough’s,  but  it  was  a  year  ago,  and  I  don't  remember. 
Senator  Burrows.  You  do  not  remember? 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  are  seven,  and  yours  and  Yarbroughs  is 
nine ;  you  said  there  were  ten  in  that  list? — A.  About  ten.  . 

Q.  Yes.  You  have  talked  about  this  with  Mr.  White,  haven t 

you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Never  talked  with  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  working  for  Mr.  White  now  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  cease  working  for  him?— A.  In  July,  1909. 

Q.  Do  you  still  work — do  you  still  live  in  East  St.  Louis?  A. 

Yes  sir. 

Q.  In  East  St.  Louis  or  O’Fallon?— A.  East  St.  Louis. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  or  what  was  Mr.  White — what  business 
was  he  in  at  the  time  that  you  were  working  for  him,  when  you  earned 
this  money? — A.  When  I  first  commenced  to  work  for  Mr.  White, 
April  12.  1909,  Mr.  White  had  two  offices  in  the  Metropolitan  Build¬ 
ing,  East  St.  Louis,  and  in  one  was  conducted  the  White  &  Johnson 
real  estate  office  and  in  the  other  was  conducted  a  National  Claim  Ad¬ 


justment  Company. 

Q.  That  was  a  collection  agency  ? — A.  Y  es,  sir. 

Q.  Were  the  two  offices  adjoining  or  connected  with  each  other  or 
in  different  parts  of  the  building?— A.  On  the  same  flour,  but  I  be¬ 
lieve  there  was  one  office  between  the  two  rooms. 

Q.  But  they  were  two  separate  offices  and  not  run  from  the  same 

place? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he,  or  his  firm,  or  concern,  whether  a  corporation  or  not, 
have  considerable  business  there  ?— A.  Well,  I  only  worked  for  Mr. 
White  four  months,  and  in  that  time  we  did  not  have  very  rushing 

business.  .  n  .  _  _  , . 

Q.  No.  Which  line  was  you  engaged  in  ? — A.  In  the  adjustment.  . 

Q.  In  the  adjustment  ;  and  in  that  business — the  adjustment  busi¬ 
ness  was  what,  adjusting  insurance  claims  or  what?  A.  Adjusting 
bills  and  collections. 

Q.  Collecting  bills  and  so  forth  ? — A.  Y  es,  s*r. 

Q.  That  is,  it  was  a  collection  agency  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


•  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  277 

Q.  And  whenever  anything  was  collected,  the  compensation  of  Mr. 
White  was  taken  out  right  away;  that  is,  he  did  not  have  to  wait  to 
send  to  somebody  to  get  his  money  for  the  work  he  did. 

Senator  Frazier.  What  has  that  got  to  do  with  this? 

Senator  Burrows.  I  don’t  see. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  was  the  other,  real  estate  business? — A. 
Real  estate  and  insurance. 

Q.  Buying  and  selling  and  so  forth,  real  estate?— A.  Yes,  sir. 
Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  One  minute,  please. 

Q.  Hid  Mr.  White  have  a  bank  account  or  bank  accounts? — A.  I 
e  Mr.  White  had  one,  but  the  firm  had  no  bank  account. 

Q.  Hid  Mr.  White  have  more  than  one? — A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Y  ere  the  collections  that  he  made,  or  that  the  collecting  agency 
nade,  put  in  the  bank  ? — A.  No,  sir ;  we  settled  with  the  persons  whom 
ve  collected  for  as  early  as  possible. 

Q.  At  once.  Y\  hat  was  done  with  the  money  as  soon  as  it  was 
‘ollected,  and  until  you  paid  it  out  ?— A.  The  men  for  whom  we  col- 
ected  money;  their  money  was  put  apart,  and  the  other  monev  was 
eft  in  the  drawer  to  be  used  for  office  expenses. 

Q.  Where  was  the  money  put;  that  is  what  I  want  to  know?-^ 
V.  In  the  money  drawer. 

Q.  In  a  desk  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  where  ? — A.  In  the  money  drawer  at  the  collection  counter. 

.  Q-  in  some  desk  or  piece  of  furniture  in  the  office?— A.  Yes, 

lr. 

Q.  It  was  never  put  in  the  bank? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  other  employees  were  there  besides  you?— A.  Well, 
ve  had  several  collectors  from  time  to  time;  they  were^not  on  a  steadv 

»ay  roll.  "  J 

Q.  How  many,  is  what  I  want  to  know. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  is  it  necessarv  to  follow  this  further? 
Judge  Hanecy.  Not  if  the  committee  does  not  desire  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  do  not  think  the  committee  cares  to  hear  anv- 
hing  further  about  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  it  is  not  out  of  order,  I  should  like  some  member 
f  the  committee  to  examine  Mr.  Link,  so  I  may  cross-examine  him. 
Senator  Burrows.  You  may  cross-examine  the  witness. 

Michael  Link,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly 
worn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and  testi- 

ed  as  follows : 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Link  what  is  your  full  name?— A.  Michael 

iink. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside,  Mr.  Link? — A.  Mitchell. 

Q.  Mitchell,  Ill.? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  elected  to  the  Illinois  legislature? — A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  When?— A.  1906  and  1908. 

Q-  You  were  there  for  two  sessions? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Speak  over  in  that  direction  [indicating].  I  will  hear  it. 

Q.  Republican  or  Hemocrat? — A.  I  am  a  Democrat. 

Q.  Elected  as  a  Hemocrat  or  a  Republican? — A.  A  Hemocrat. 


278  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  When  for  the  first  time  did  you  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator? — A.  The  26th  of  May,  I  believe. 

Q.  1909,  sir? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  other  words,  the  first  time  you  ever  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
for  Senator  was  the  day  he  was  elected? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What,  if  any,  talk  did  you  have  with  any  one - A.  What 

do  you  refer  to? 

Q.  - with  respect  to  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United  States 

Senator  prior  to  May  26,  1909? — A.  TV  ith  Mr.  Lorimer  himself. 

Q.  When? — A.  Some  ten  days  prior  to  his  election. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  to  you,  and  what  did  you  say  to  him? — A.  I 
personally  promised  him  my  vote. 

Q.  What  else  was  said  ?— A.  “How  do  you  do,”  and  so  forth. 

Q.  Anything  else? — A.  Not  to  my  recollection.  You  have  got  the 
substance  of  the  conversation. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  you  whether  you  knew  Lee  O’Neil  Browne? — A. 
No,  sir;  he  knew  that  I  knew  him  without  asking  that  question.^ 

Q.  He  asked  you  at  no  time  whether  or  not  you  knew  Lee  O’Neil 
Browne,  did  he? — A.  He  did  not  ask  me  if  I  knew  Lee  O’Neil 
Browne. 

Q.  He  did  not  ask  you  whether  you  had  any  influence  with  Lee 
O’Neil  Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  that  occasion  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  say? — A.  I  told  him  I  did  not  think  I  would 
have. 

Q.  Did  you  and  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  ever  discuss  your  interview 
with  Lorimer? — A.  Yes,  sir;  to  some  extent. 

Q.  When?— A.  Some  three  or  four  days  before  Lorimer  ’was 
elected,  so  my  recollection. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  Browne  and  what  did  he  say  to  you? — A. 
I  simply  told  him  I  had  the  laugh  on  him. 

Q.  What  else? — A.  He  asked  me  if — do  you  want  to  know  what 

he  asked  me? 

Q.  I  want  the  conversation? — A.  The  conversation  was  this,  to  my 
recollection:  He  said,  “  Hello.  Mike,”  and  I  said,  “Hello,  Lee.”  He 
says,  “  Come  here  a  minute,  Mike,  I  want  to  see  you,**  and  I  said, 
“All  right.”  He  says,  “  Mike,  would  you  vote  for  a  Republican  for 
the  United  States  Senate?  ”  I  says,  “Lee,  it  is  according  to  what 
Republican  you  have  in  view.”  He  says,  “  How  would  Mr.  Lorimer 
suit  you,  Mike?  ”  I  had  the  laugh  on  him  right  there,  and  I  said, 
“  Lee,  I  have  got  the  laugh  on  you,  I  beat  you  to  it,”  that  I  promised 
Mr.  Lorimer  a  week  or  ten  days  ago  personally.  That  is  all  the 
conversation  that  took  place. 

Q.  You  were  not  surprised  when  Browne  asked  you  that  in  view 
of  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Lorimer  whether  or  not  you  had  any 
influence  with  Browne? — A.  I  do  not  understand  any  such  ques¬ 
tion,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  were  you  surprised  when  Browne  put  the  question  ? — A. 
Why ;  do  I  have  to  say  yes  or  no  ? 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  whether  or  not  you  were  surprised  ? — A.  Well, 

we  will  pass  that. 

Q,  No,  we  won’t. — A.  I  was  not  surprised  and  I  was — I  wrns  either 
surprised  or  not  surprised.  Will  that  answer  it  ? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  All  right. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  279 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  have  you  had  any  talk  with  anyone  with  reference 
co  this  subject-matter  to-day? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  it  with  anyone  ? — A.  I  heard  a  conversation  in 
:he  other  room  about  what  the  boys  had  talked  about, 

Q.  I  am  not  talking  about  that.  Did  you  have  a  discussion  with 
myone? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  lou  did  not  talk  to  Judge  Hanecy  about  it,  did  you? _ A.  I 

saw  Judge  Hanecy  about  it  this  morning. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  with  Judge  Hanecy  the  subject-matter  of  this 
estimony  in  any  way? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  engage  in  a  conversation  with  Judge 
danecy? — A.  Not  very  long. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Judge  Hanecy  before  to-day? — A.  I  met  him  in 

he  forty-fifth  general  assembly;  at  the  forty-fifth  general  assemblv 
it  Springfield.  '  J 

Q.  Have  you  met  Judge  Hanecy  since  that  at  any  time? _ \ 

so,  sir.  " 

Q.  Have  you  made  written  statement,  Mr.  Link,  as  to  the  facts 
oncermng  which  you  are  now  testifying  ?— A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  swore 

o  it. 

Q-  Nnd  you  delis  eied  that  to  IMr.  Browne  or  one  of  his  attornevs 
id  you  not?— A.  Well,  I  delivered  it;  yes.  3  ’ 

Q.  To  whom? — A.  Some  one  here  in  Chicago. 

Q*  Mdio  (  A.  I  believe  that  it  was  to  ]\Xr.  Lonmer's  secretarv 
Q.  What  is  his  name? — A.  Mr.  Ward. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  that  written  statement  and  swear  to  it 
nd  deliver  it  to  Mr.  Ward?— A.  Three  days  after  I  returned  home 
fter  going  through  the  third  degree  here  in  Chicago. 

Q.  You  went  through  the  third  degree,  did  you  ?— A.  Quite  likelv. 
Q.  Did  you  tell  the  truth  when  you  testified  before  the  grand  jury? 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that.  There  is  no  testimony  here  as 
d  what  he  did  testify  to.  His  attention  has  not  been  called  to  it 
ut  the  general  question  asked,  Did  you  testify  to  the  truth  here  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Not  “here.” 

Judge  Hanecy.  In  Chicago. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Before  the  grand  jury. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  witness  was  probably  put  there  as _ 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  committee  ought  to  know. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  I  put. 
Senator  Burrows.  Does  it  appear  that  he  has  testified  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  conceded  that  he  testified  before  the  grand 
iry;  it  has  been  in  evidence;  it  is  conceded  on  all  sides. 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  you  testify  before  the  grand  jury? _ A 

es,  sir. 

Senator  Paynter.  It  seems  to  me  the  committee  ought  to  know  if 
i  testified. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  testified  three  times  before  the  grand  jury. 
Senator  Burrows.  That  is  enough.  He  states  that  he  testified.* 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  was  there  several  times,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Answer  the  question. — A.  I  shall  not  deny  it 
hthis  time. 


280  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Well,  will  you  deny  it  at  any  other  time,  place,  or  condition?— 
A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  Mr.  Link,  other  than  your  talk  with  Senator 
Lorimer  and  Mr.  Browne,  did  you  have  any  talk  with  anyone  with 
reference — in  Springfield,  I  mean — on  or  about  the  26th  of  May 
1909,  with  reference  to  your  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  or  voting  for  Mr 
Lorimer? — A.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  isn’t  it  a  fact  that  before  you  had,  your  talk  with  Mr 
Lorimer  you  did  have  a  discussion  with  one  Nagel  on  the  subject 
during  the  course  of  a  buggy  ride  or  a  carriage  ride? — A.  Nagel? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  I  deny  that. 

Q.  You  do?  Weren’t  you  taken  out? — A.  Not  by  Mr.  Nagel. 

Q.  Who  took  you  out? — A.  Shall  I  answer  the  question? 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. — A.  Two  constituents  of  mine  fron 
Madison  County  asked  me  to  take  a  carriage  ride,  and  I  did.  D( 
you  want  to  know  the  names? 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. — A.  Mr.  Lenager  and  Mr.  Nod 
lier  ( ? ) . 

Q.  And  did  you  discuss  with  them  the  subject  of  voting  foi 
Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q,.  Not  at  all? — A.  Do  you  want  any  conversation  that  took  place ' 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  whether  you  discussed  the  subject  at  all  witl 
them  in  reference  to  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  didn’t  they  take  you  up  to  Mr.  Lorimer  ai 
the  end  of  that  carriage  ride  ? — A.  It  is  not  necessary  to  say  that  1 
had  a  conversation  about  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  I 'saw  them  anc 
they  took  me  up. 

Q.  And  then  you  had  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Lorimer  witl 
reference  to  voting  for  him? — A.  In  their  presence;  yes. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Link,  when  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Illinoi: 
legislature,  which  it  is  conceded  was  June  4  or  5,  1909,  did  you  se< 
Robert  E.  Wilson? — A.  Some  time  in  July,  I  presume. 

Q.  In  July?  When  after  the  session  of  the  legislature  in  June  di( 
you  see  Lee  O’Neill  Browne? — A.  Some  time  in  June. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  Lee  O’Neill  Browne? — A.  At  the  Souther] 
Hotel. 

Q.  What  date? — A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Give  the  date  to  the  best  of  your  recollection. — A.  During  tli 
month  of  June. 

Q.  The  latter  part,  or  forepart,  or  middle  part  ? — -A.  I  do  not  re 
member  anything  about  that,  sir. 

Q.  If  the  Illinois  legislature  adjourned  on  or  about  the  4th  or  5tl 
of  June,  how  long  after  that  date  would  you  say  that  you  met  Le 
O’Neil  Browne  in  the  city  of  St.  Louis  ?—A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  meet  with  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  if  anyone,  whei 
you  met  Lee  O’Neil  Browne? — A.  I  met  Lee  O'Neil  Browne. 

Q,  Anyone  else? — A.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Was  anyone  present? — A.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Where  did  you  meet  him? — A.  At  the  Southern  Hotel. 

Q,  How  did  you  happen  to  go  to  the  Southern  Hotel  in  the  city  o 
St.  Louis  in  the  month  of  June  to  meet  Lee  O’Neil  Browne? — A.  B; 
invitation. 

Q.  From  whom.? — A.  I  do  not  remember. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO  RIMER.  281 


Q.  Was  it  in  writing  or  oral? — A.  I  do  not  remember,  sir;  that  is 
ny  testimony  on  the  stand  here  as  a  witness;  I  do  not  remember 
whether  it  was  oral,  or  telegraphed,  or  written.  I  adhere  to  that 
;estimony. 

Q.  But  you  went  ? — A.  I  certainly  did. 

Q.  Did  the  message  say,  whether  oral  or  in  writing,  the  place  for 
you  to  meet  him,  or  did  it  not? — A.  Well,  it  told  me  where  to  meet 
Mr.  Browne. 

Q.  Where  did  it  tell  you  to  meet  Mr.  Browne? — A.  At  the  South¬ 
ern  Hotel. 

Q.  What  did  it  say,  anything  further,  or  did  it  say  the  purpose  of 
neeting  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  conclude  the  purpose  was? — A.  I  had  no  idea. 

Q.  Nothing  at  all? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  the  furthest  from  your  mind? 

Senator  Burrows.  He  has  so  stated.  Is  not  that  sufficient? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  cross-examining  this  witness. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Link,  was  there  any  surprise — did  it  surprise 
mu  when  you  received  the  message? — A.  Not  to  any  extent;  he  was 
>ur  Democrat  leader,  and  I  respected  him  as  such. 

Q.  You  thought  you  were  going  down  to  a  banquet,  didn’t  you? — 
Y  No  opinion  for  that  kind  of  a  question. 

Q.  None  at  all? — A.  None  at  all. 

Q.  You  never  attended  a  banquet  with  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  did 
,Tou  ? — A.  Oh,  yes ;  oh,  yes. 

Q.  When  you  arrived  at  St.  Louis  in  this  month  of  June  what  oc¬ 
curred? — A.  I  went  into  the  Southern  Hotel. 

Q.  Yes.  Where  did  you  go  when  you  got  into  the  Southern  Ho- 
el? — A.  I  asked  where  Mr.  Browne’s  room  was  and  the  clerk  there 
old  me,  or  some  gentleman  who  had  charge. 

Q.  Did  you  go  up  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Unannounced,  or  did  you  send  word  that  you  were  down 
itairs? — A.  I  do  not  remember  that. 

Q.  What  took  place  when  you  got  into  Mr.  Lee  O’Neil  Browne’s 

presence  in  his  room  in  the  Southern  Hotel  in  the  month  of  June? _ 

V.  Well,  we  were  glad  to  see  one  another. 

Q.  What  else  took  place?  Were  you — withdraw  that — what  else 
ook  place  ? — A.  Mr.  Browne  handed  me  some  money. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  when  he  handed  you  the  money? — A.  He  said, 

:  Here  is  a  package  for  you.” 

Q.  What  amount? — A.  I  do  not  think  he  mentioned  the  amount  to 
ny  knowledge ;  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  look  it  over? — A.  Oh,  I  did  afterwards. 

Q.  How  much  was  it? — A.  One  thousand  dollars. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  what  it  was  for? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Weren’t  you  interested  in  knowing? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  just  took  it,  did  you? — A.  I  thought  it  was  campaign 
nonev. 

Q.  When  did  you  discover  that? — A.  That  is  my  knowledge — I  can 
lot  recall  that. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  you  have  testified  before  the  Cook  County  grand  jury 
•f  May,  have  you  not? — A.  I  presume  it  was;  yes. 


282  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHAEGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  you  have  testified  in  the  first  trial  of  Lee  O’Neil  Browne 
in  the  month  of  June,  haven’t  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  have  testified  in  the  second  trial  of  Lee  O’Neil  Browne 
in  the  month  of  July  or  August? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  at  any  time  heretofore  that  you  thought  it 
was  campaign  money  ? — A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  you  went  back  home,  did  you? — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  After  you  got  back  home  what  did  you  do  with  the  $1,000? — A. 
I  can  not  tell  you  anything  about  that,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know;  is  that  it? — A.  Well,  I  handle  considerable 
money  sometimes. 

Q.  You  are  a  man  of  affluence,  are  you  not? — A.  If  you  think  so, 
all  right. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you;  I  don’t  know.  Are  you  a  man  in  good  cir¬ 
cumstances  financially? — A.  I  do  considerable  trading,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  a  man  in  good  circumstances? — A.  Well,  fairly;  yes. 

Q.  Did  you  need  that  $1,000? — A.  It  came  very  handy. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  did  you  tell  anyone  you  got  the  one  thousand? — A. 
Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  after  the  1st  day  of  May,  or  2d  or  3d  of  May,  1909, 
several  people  inquired  of  you  whether  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  had  paid 
you  any  money  in  the  city  of  St.  Louis  or  anywhere  else  during  the 
month  of  June,  1909,  did  they  not? — A.  I  absolutely  deny  that. 

Q.  You  at  all  times  deny  that;  is  that  right? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  think  you  testified  before  the  grand  jury  in  Chicago,  Ill.;  you 
at  all  times  denied  it.  did  you  not? — A.  1  do  not  remember  being 
asked  the  question  by  anybody. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  Charles  White  coming  down  to  see  you 
with  a  man  by  the  name  of  Tierney  or  Turner? — A.  No,  sir;  of 
course  they  were  there,  but  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Weren’t  they  there  on  several  occasions  to  see  you? — A.  One 
occasion,  I  think — twice. 

Q.  He  was  there  twice? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  didn’t  you  come  down  to  the  railroad  station  after  he  had 
visited  you  on  your  farm  and  didn’t  you  say,  “  I  want  to  correct  my 
statement  I  made  to  you  with  respect  to  meeting  Lee  O'Neil  Browne 
in  the  citv  of  St.  Louis  during  the  month  of  June,  1909?  ” — A.  No, 
sir;  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  going  down  to  the  station  at  all? — A.  I 
go  to  the  station  three  or  four  times  a  day,  when  I  take  a  notion. 

Q.  But  Tierney  and  White  were  there  inquiring  on  this  subject- 
matter? — A.  It  made  no  impression. 

Q.  On  you? — A.  Didn’t  worry  me  much. 

Q.  It  didn’t? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  you  weren’t  worried  about  this  entire  subject-matter, 
were  you  ? — A.  Not  until  I  got  to  Chicago  to  the  third-degree  method. 

Q.  We  will  remember  all  the  way  through  about  the  third-degree 
method.  During  the  third-degree  method,  did  you  testify  on  any 
occasion  different  to  what  you  are  now  testifying? — A.  Not  to  my 
knowledge. 

Q,.  Now,  Mr.  Link,  after  you  received  this  $1,000  and  after  you 
went  home  to  your  home,  did  you  again  go  back  to  St.  Louis? — A.  I 
go  there  two  or  three  times  a  week. 


.INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  283 

Q.  Well,  with  reference  to  obtaining  any  other  packages? — A.  I 
id  not  go  for  that  purpose. 

Q.  You  did  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  there  to  meet  Browne  or  Wilson  during  the  month 
t  July,  1909  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  response  to  any  invitation  to  come? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  From  whom  did  that  invitation  come? — A.  I  disremember 
hether  it  was  from  Bob  Wilson  or  who  it  was  from ;  it  was  an  invi- 
tion  to  be  at  the  Southern  Hotel. 

Q.  It  was  either  from  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  or  from  Robert  E.  Wil- 
>n,  was  it  not? — A.  It  was  from  some  one  connected  Avith  the  Demo¬ 
ats;  I  don’t  know  who  it  was. 

Q.  You  haven’t  any  recollection  on  the  subject? — A.  Perhaps  it 
as  Wilson. 

Q.  It  made  no  impression  on  you  at  all,  sir,  did  it? — A.  Not  par- 
cularly. 

Q.  It  was  not  anything  unusual,  was  it  ?  Was  it  an  unusual  request 
wording  to  your  understanding  or  your  Avay  of  looking  at  it? — A. 
didn’t  surprise  me  very  much. 

Q,  Then  you  went  down?  Whom  did  you  meet  when  you  got 
ere? — A.  Robert  Wilson. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  him  at  the  time  appointed  in  the  communication 
>u  received  inviting  you  to  meet  him  at  St.  Louis? — A.  I  presume 
was  the  time  I  had  the  invitation  to  come  down  there. 

Q.  Was  the  invitation  oral,  in  writing,  or  over  the  phone — strike 
it  over  the  phone — over  the  phone  designating  the  time  and  place 
>u  Avere  to  meet  him? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Avhen  you  did  meet  Wilson — I  understood  you  to  say  it 
as  Robert  E.  Wilson? — A.  I  rather  think  that  is  the  word  I  got. 
iy  invitation  or  notice,  rather. 

Q.  From  Wilson? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  Avas  what  time,  if  you  can  tell  the  committee? — A.  In  July. 
Q.  About  what  date? — A.  I  don’t  remember  the  date. 

Q.  When  you  met  Wilson  in  St.  Louis  where  did  you  meet  him? — 
..  At  the  Southern  Hotel. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  the  date,  please? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  the  date? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  present  when  you  saAv  Wilson  ? — A.  Who  was  present 
jght  at  that  time? 

Q.  On  your  visit  to  see  Wilson  whom  did  you  see  that  belonged  to 
Avere  members  of  the  Illinois  legislature? — A.  Mr.  Sheppard,  Mr. 
lark,  and  Mr.  Luke  (he  is  now  dead),  and  White. 

Q.  Charles  A.  White? — A.  I  think  his  name  is  Charles,  and  Wh¬ 
in,  I  believe — Robert  E.  Wilson. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Beckemeyer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer  Avas  not  there  on  that  occasion? — A.  I  didn’t 
:e  him  if  he  Avas. 

Q.  Now,  where  did  you  meet  Wilson,  in  the  Southern  Hotel? — A. 
es,  sir. 

Q.  Where? — A.  I  presume  it  Avas  his  room,  but  I  don’t  remember 
e  number  of  the  room  or  Avhat  room  it  Avas. 

Q.  It  Avas  a  ro6m  in  the  Southern  Hotel? — A.  It  Avas  a  room  in  the 

mthern  Hotel. 


284  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  When  you  went  in  the  room  at  the  Southern  Hotel,  or  while  yo 
were  in  a  room  at  the  Southern  Hotel,  were  there  some  member 
of  the  Illinois  legislature  present  whose  names  you  have  indicatei 
to  this  committee  ? — A.  They  were  not  in  the  room  all  at  one  time, 
don’t  think. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  see  all  of  them  there  in  that  room  at  the  same  tim 
or  in  there  while  you  were  in  there? — A.  I  don’t  remember;  I  sa^ 
them  there  at  the  Southern  Hotel  that  day. 

Q.  When  you  had  your  talk  with  Wilson  in  the  room  at  the  South 
ern  Hotel,  any  part  of  it,  where  were  you,  in  a  bathroom? — A.  In  ; 
room. 

Q.  Did  you  go  into  the  bathroom? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anyone  go  in  the  bathroom  while  you  were  there? — A 
Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Did  Wilson  hand  you  anything? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What? — A.  A  package. 

Q.  Did  he  hand  it  to  you  in  the  presence  of  the  other  members  o 
the  Illinois  legislature,  if  any  were  there? — A.  That  I  dorr 
remember. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  hand  a  package  to  any  other  member  of  th 
Illinois  legislature? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you  it  was? — A.  He  says:  “Here  is  sonr 
money.” 

Q.  Did  he  say:  “Here  is  a  package?” — A.  He  said:  “Here  is  i 
package.” 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  about  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  did  you  count  the  amount  of  money? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  was  it? — A.  Nine  hundred  dollars. 

Q.  Were  you  surprised  when  you  got  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  consider  you  were  getting  campaign  money  ? — A.  Well 
to  be  sure. 

Q.  You  didn’t  consider  you  were  getting  anything  else,  did  you 
sir  ? — A.  I  had  a  right  to  consider  it  that  way,  if  I  saw  fit,  and  tha 
is  the  way  I  looked  at  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  you  didn’t  discuss  the  receipt  of  that  $900,  did  you  ?- 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  campaign  did  you  have,  or  did  you  propose  to  have  nex 
after  the  month  of  June  or  July,  1909? — A.  I  expected  to  go  bad 
to  the  next  legislature. 

Q.  When  was  the  next  legislature  to  convene  or  candidates  therefoi 
be  nominated? — A.  1910. 

Q.  In  what  month? — A.  In  July. 

Q.  In  July  or  August,  was  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sfr. 

Q.  1910? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  didn’t  strike  you  as  peculiar  that  Browne  or  Wilson  on  tw( 
separate  occasions  were  going  to  contribute  to  your  campaign  ex 
penses  more  than  a  year  prior  to  your  candidacy,  did  it? — A.  I  tolc 
you  I  was  not  surprised. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  argument;  if  the  committee  desire  to  heai 
it,  I  have  no  objection. 

Q.  Did  you  disclose  to  anyone  prior  to  your  appearance  before  th( 
grand  jury  in  Cook  County^  Ill.,  that  you  had  received  $900,  anc 
got  a  part  thereof  from  Mr.  Wilson  in  the  Southern  Hotel  at  St 
Louis  during  the  month  of  July,  1909? — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  285 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Link,  did  you  discuss  it  with  Mr.  Clark  or  Mr.  Shep- 
id  or  Mr.  White,  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  or  Mr.  Wilson,  or  with  anyone 
<>e? — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  No.  You  were  very  much  interested  in  the  deep  waterway,  were 
;>u  not? — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  And  you  testified  in  the  Browne  case  in  the  first  or  second  or 
l*th  of  them  that  one  of  the  reasons  why  you  were  willing  to  vote  for 
.  r.  Lorimer,  if  he  were  a  candidate,  was  by  reason  of  his  views  on  the 
(ep-waterway  proposition;  is  that  correct? — A.  That  was  the  main 
lason,  and  the  onlv  reason. 

Q.' That  was  the  one  impelling  motive? — A.  That  was  my  reason, 
;  d  the  only  one. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Link,  why,  if  that  was  the  reason  and  you  were  so 
ind  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  why  did  you  not  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  when  his 
1  me  was  first  suggested  as  a  candidate  for  United  States  Senator, 
(  the  13th  day  of  May,  1909? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen. 
r  lis  witness  is  a  farmer,  and  it  would  not  be  fair  to  the  witness  to  ask 
hn  any  argumentative  question  that  would  not  illustrate  any  special 
icts  and  circumstances.  The  question  would  not  be  permitted  to  be 
died  and  answered  in  any  court  of  law. 

(Question  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

Senator  Burrows.  Answer  the  question. — A.  I  was — shall  I  answer 
i  my  way  ?  I  was  there  every  day  and  every  hour  of  that  session 
tit  the  legislature  was  in  session,  and  I  was  watching  for  the  time 
i  ien  the  turn  would  come  that  my  vote  would  help  elect  him.  Is  that 
:tisfactory  ? 

Q.  If  it  is  the  truth,  it  is  perfectly  satisfactory. — A.  It  is  the  truth, 
)  ur  honor. 

Q.  I  am  not  your  honor.  Mr.  Link,  he  w'as  a  candidate  on  the  13th 
:y  of  May,  1909,  was  he  not?  He  was  a  candidate  some  days  before 
Jay  26th,  1909? 

Senator  Gamble.  That  is,  he  was  voted  for. 

Judge  IIanecy.  I  object  to  Senator  Lorimer  being  called  a  candi- 

:te. 

Q.  Senator  Lorimer’s  name  was  voted  for  as  United  States  Senator 
i  the  general  assembly  nearly  two  weeks  before  the  26th  day  of  May, 
109,  was  it  not? — A.  My  recocllection  is  that  it  was  not  a  very  big 
\te;  I  think  he  was  voted  for,  but  that  was  not  the  time  for  me  to 
\te  for  him. 

Q.  You  were  watching  for  the  signal  or  sign,  were  you,  of  indica¬ 
tes,  before  you  voted  for  him? — A.  I  was  watching  until  I  felt  I 
ild  elect  him. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  could  have  elected  him  on  the  25th  of  May? — 

/  On  the  26th ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  could  have  elected  him  on  the  25th  day  of  May, 
t ?  day  before  he  was  elected  ? 

.V.  I  didn’t  discuss  that  matter  with  any  one  individual,  to  my 
b  owledge. 

Q.  You  didn’t  hear  anyone  discuss  it,  did  you? — A.  They  didn’t 
ell  me  to  one  side  and  consult  with  me. 

Q.  You  didn’t  hear  that  discussed,  did  you? — A.  I  heard  some  dif- 
f’ent  rumors,  but  not  to  my  knowledge  no  one  discussed  it  with  me. 


286  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  You  were  going  to  vote  for  him,  even  though  you  were  a  Demo¬ 
crat,  by  reason  of  his  views  on  the  deep  waterway  5  is  that  correct? 
A.  Will  you  allow  me  to  tell  you  when  I  made  up  my  mind  to  vote 


for  him  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir.— A.  In  March,  1909— provided  we  could  not  elect  a 


Democrat. 


Q,  As  early  as  March  ?— A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  Had  you  voted  for  any  Republican  after  March?— A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  Now,"  Mr.  Link,  you  heard  Mr.  Lorimer  on  the  deep-waterway 

proposition  when  ? — A.  \  ou  mean  prior  to  the - 

Q.  To  May  26  ? — A.  I  heard  him  and  followed  him  in  our  county 


when  he  came  there.  -  . 

Q.  When  was  that?— A.  In  the  fall  of  1908,  I  think. 

Q.  1908.  It  was  by  reason  of  his  views  on  the  deep-waterway 
proposition  that  you  concluded,  if  the  occasion  arose,  to  vote  for  Mr. 
Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator,  was  it  not?  A.  Tes,  sir}  I  vas 
opposed  to  Illinois  going  it  alone.  I  wanted  the  United  States  Gov¬ 
ernment  to  give  us  help. 

Q.  It  was  by  reason  of  Mr.  Lorimer’s  expressions  on  the  deep 

waterway - A.  (Interrupting.)  His  attitude;  yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  That  you  concluded  you  would  vote  for  him  for  United  States 
Senator? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  thought  he  was  the  greatest  man  in  Illinois. 
Q.  Was  there  any  other  fact  that  impelled  you  to  vote  for  him?— 

A.  Not  any  emphatic  fact;  no,  sir.  '  ' . 

Q.  Money  hadn’t  anything  to  do  with  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  If  money  had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  why  didn’t  you  return  the 
money  to  Browne  and  Wilson?— A.  If  I  get  made  a  present  that  is 

acceptable,  I  will  take  it  from  you.  * 

Q.  You  will?— A.  Yes;  if  it  is  acceptable. 

Q.  If  it  were  money,  it  would  be  acceptable? — A.  If  it  was  tor  m j 
good;  ves,  sir. 

Q.  If  it  was  for  your  good?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  if  I  should  walk  over  to  you  and  hand  you  $1,000  you  wil 
first  take  the  money  and  thereafter  conclude  whether  it  is  for  youi 


good,  will  you? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  him  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  withdraw  the  question. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  did  you  ascertain  or  did  you  have  any  knowledge  tha1 

anyone  else  was  paid  any  money  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  discussed  that  with  anyone?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  discussed  it  with  Joe  Clark?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  discussed  it  with  Wilson? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  discussed  it  with  Mr.  Beckemever ?—  A.  No. 

Q.  You  never  discussed  it  with  White? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q  You  never  discussed  it  with  anyone?— A.  Not  to  my  knowledge 
Q.  Joe  Clark,  at  any  time,  did  he,  Mr.  Link,  tell  you  to  hold  011 
until  you  received  $1,000,  or  the  promise  of  $1,000?— A.  Whether  1>« 

told  me?  ,  .  .  T  i  .  , 

Q.  I  am  asking  you,  did  he  tell  you  that? — A.  I  am  asking  you  < 

question  whether  I  told  him. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  that? — A.  No,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  287 

Q.  Or  anything  concerning  it? — A.  I  personally  promised  my 
)te,  gentlemen — I  did  not  sell  my  vote — I  personally  promised  it  to 
T.  Lorimer  without  any - 

Q.  (Interrupting.)  Did  Joe  Clark  ever  discuss  with  you  prior  to 
ie  26th  day  of  May,  1909,  not  to  promise  to  vote  for  Lorimer  and  not 
>  vote  for  Lorimer  until  you  had  been  given  to  understand  that  you  ' 
ere  to  receive  $1,000? — A.  No,  sir;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  You  don’t  know? — A.  Wellrno.  I  know  I  talked  lots  of  times, 
it  I  don’t  remember  those  things;  so  do  you. 

Q.  Never  mind  what  I  do. — A.  Then  never  mind  what  I  do. 

Q.  Will  you  say  you  never  had  any  such  talk  with  Joe  Clark? — A. 
don’t  remember,  gentlemen,  of  having  a  talk  of  that  kind,  so  far 
::  money  matters  go,  about  my  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer;  I  deny 
i y  matters  of  that  kind  with  Mr.  Clark  or  anyone  else. 

Q.  Will  you  deny  having  any  such  talk  with  Joe  Clark? — A.  What 
lk? 

Q.  That  you  should  not  vote  for  Lorimer  or  agree  to  vote  for 
orimer  to  Browne  or  anyone  else  until  you  had  been  promised 
!  ,000,  or  been  given  to  understand  that  you  were  to  get  $1,000  for 
i  doing? — A.  I  absolutely  deny,  gentlemen,  and  this  is  the  second 
me  I  have  denied  about  any  money  matters  or  anything  else  relating 
money. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  deny,  if  it  is  a  fact,  that  you  had  no  such  con- 
Tsation  with  Joe  Clark. — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  I  don’t  be- 
}ve  I  did,  sir;  that  is  the  best  of  my  opinion,  and  that  is  as  far  as 
can  go.  Can  you  bring  me  any  farther? 

Q.  I  don’t  want  to  bring  you  any  farther  than  you  want  to  go. — 

..  All  right. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  you  were  a  follower  of  Lee  O’Neil  Browne’s? — A.  I 

>ted  for  him. 

Q.  You  were  what  is  commonly  called  a  member  of  the  Browne 
ction;  yes  or  no,  please? — A.  Yes;  I  guess  that  is  the  way  to  put 
i;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anyone  prior  to  your  voting  for  Lorimer  on  the  26th  day 
«’  May,  1909,  say  to  you,  “  That  this  is  the  day  it  is  to  come  off,”  or 
This  is  the  day  you  are  to  vote  for  Lorimer,”  or  anything  akin  to 
iat,  or  with  reference  to  it?  Yes  or  no,  please. — A.  Did  anyone? 
es;  I  will  say  on  that  day  I  heard  rumors,  and  I  believed  them. 

Q.  You  heard  a  rumor? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  believed  it. 

Q.  You  didn’t  hear  from  anyone  specifically — it  was  just  a  ru- 
]or? — A.  I  guess  it  was  some  of  my  seat  members;  it  was  not 
rowne — it  was  not. 

Q.  Who  was  it? — A.  I  don’t  remember;  somebody  that  sat  near 

lr  me. 

Q.  What  did  they  say? — A.  “To-day  is  the  day  that  Lorimer  is 
;>ing  to  be  elected,”  or  “  We  are  all  voting  for  Lorimer,”  and  I  gladly 
mepted  the  chance. 

Q.  Prior  to  that  no  one  else  talked  with  you  about  it? — A.  No, 
f:;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  You  are  a  farmer,  I  believe,  are  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  have  been  all  your  manhood  life? — A.  All  my  life;  bom 

u  a  farm. 


288  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  You  have  lived  in  Madison  County  for  how  long? — A.  Twenty- 

three  years.  . 

Q.  You  live  out  some  distance  from - A.  (Interrupting.)  A  mile 

from  Mitchell,  a  little  station. 

Q.  When  were  you  first  elected  to  the  legislature? — A.  In  Novem¬ 
ber,  1906. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  everybody  from  the  southern  part  ot  Illi¬ 
nois,  Republicans  and  Democrats,  who  desire  to  meet  each  other  at 
any  place,  generally  go  to  St.  Louis?— A.  Yes,  sir;  from  time  to  time 
men  for  years  have  met  members  of  the  legislature  there. 

Q.  Was  it  very  much  easier  to  go  to  St.  Louis  than  to  any  other 
town  that  has  any  hotel  accommodations  south  of  the  central  part  of 
Illinois? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  very  much  easier  to  go  there  than  from  any  other  part  of 
southern  or  central  Illinois  than  it  is  to  go  to  Chicago,  isn  t  it  \ery 
much  easier  to  go  to  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes,  sin 

Q.  It  is  practically  a  uniform  practice,  is  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  anybody,  for  political  or  other  reasons,  want  two  or  three 
to  get  together  for  any  purpose,  they  meet  at  St.  Louis? — A.  Les,  sir. 

Q.  That  has  been  the  case  for  a  great  many  years?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  saw  me  before  this  morning,  except  when  you  heard 
me  arguing  on  the  constitutionality  of  a  bill  before  the  judiciary  of 
the  house  several  years  ago?— A.  I  recall  one  time,  Mr.  Hanecy,  I 
think  I  saw  you,  but  didn’t  meet  you. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don’t  think  that  is  proper. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  asked  me  this  morning  if  I  was  not  Judge 
Hanecy.  I  didn't  know  him  and  never  saw  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  All  right. 

The  Witness.  To  my  recollection,  Judge,  you  were  making  a 
speech  and  I  was  in  Chicago  calling  on  some  friends,  and  you  were 
making  a  talk,  perhaps  it  was  about  the  Irish  League. 

Q.  Irish  Fellowship? — A.  Yes,  sir:  I  didn’t  meet  you  at  that  time; 
I  heard  you  speak  there.  Outside  of  that  I  have  not  seen  you  since 
the  forty-fifth  general  session.  I  heard  you  speak  that  day. 

Q.  That  was  an  argument  on  the  constitutionality  or  unconstitu¬ 
tionality  of  some  bill  before  the  judiciary  committee  of  the  house?— 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  and  I  didn’t  talk  then? — A.  No,  sir.  _  . 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  me  to  talk  to  me  other  than  this  Irish  Fellow¬ 
ship  affair,  until  this  morning? — A.  No,  sir.  .  . 

Q.  Then  when  I  stepped  into  Mr.  Nicholson’s  room  to  speak  to  Mr 
Nicholson  for  a  moment,  somebody  called  me  by  name  and  you  ther 
came  up  and  said,  “  Is  this  Judge  Hanecy  ?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  u 

true. 

Q.  Is  that  a  fact?— A.  That  is  a  fact. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then,  except  to  tell  me  who  you  were.  A.  1 
told  you  that  I*  was  a  member  of  the  forty-fifth  general  assemble 
when  you  made  a  speech  there  on  the  constitutionality  of  a  ceitair 

act ;  we  spoke  about  that.  . 

Q.  Did  you  tell  me  your  name  when  you  first  came  up  and  askec 
me  whether  I  was  Judge  Hanecy? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  says,  ‘‘This  R 
Representative  Link.” 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  289 

Q.  Then  I  left  and  went  in  another  part  of  the  room? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Then  left  the  room  entirely  and  haven’t  seen  you  since  until  I 
iame  here  ? — A.  That  is  a  fact. 

Q.  You  were  subpoenaed  here  as  a  witness  before  the  grand  jury, 
vere  you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  May  I  go  back  just  a  little  ways?  Before  you  came  up  to  Chi- 
*ago,  you  were  asked  by  Mr.  Austrian  if  Mr.  White — C.  A.  White. — 
[  assume,  and  Mr.  Tierney,  I  assume  that  is  the  man  Turner,  who  was 
mown  as  Tierney — that  is  right. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don’t  know;  I  got  the  name  Tierney  from  you; 

-  don’t  know  what  man  you  refer  to. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  was  a  detective.  To  identify  him  as  the  same 
nan,  that  is  all.  This  is  the  same  man,  isn’t  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  man  I  referred  to. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  is  a  detective. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  when  was  it  that  any  detective  went  down  to  talk  with 
rou? — A.  I  disremember;  I  remember  nearly  everything,  and  I  re- 
aember  of  him  calling  on  me  there;  I  presume  it  was  sometime  in 
Ipril ;  I  am  not  certain  about  that  matter,  though. 

Q.  Was  it  as  early  as  February  or  March? — A.  No;  I  think  not; 
disremember  what  time  it  was  though ;  I  didn’t  put  it  down  in  my 
lemory. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  the  Tribune  published  the  story  that 
ras  claimed  to  have  been  written  by  White? — A.  Not  the  date.  I 
idn’t  read  the  story  in  the  Tribune. 

Q.  But  the  occurrence? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Turner  and  Mr.  White  saw  you 
efore  that  publication  or  after?— A.  I  don’t  know  as  to  that. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  before  you  were  asked  to  come  to  Chicago  here 
nd  see  the  state’s  attorney  or  was  summoned  before  the  grand  jury, 
id  White  and  Turner  or  Tierney  go  down  to  talk  with  you?— A.’ 
*erhaps  three  weeks  or  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Three  weeks  before?— A.  Three  weeks  after  Mr.  Tierney  and 
li.  White  were  at  my  place;  something  of  that  kind;  I  am  not  posi- 
ve. 

Q.  About  three  weeks  after  they  were  there  to  your  place,  you  were 
immoned  up  here  in  Chicago  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Tierney  and  White  talk  with  you  or  come  down  there 
lore  than  once? — A.  Not  White;  Tierney  was  there  the  second  time, 
nd  I  pretty  nearly  forgot  the  incident,  when  I  met  him  somewhere 
bout  Mitchell,  about  the  station.  I  went  in  for  mv  mail  or  nerhanq 
)  buy  something.  ’  ’ 1  1  ’ 

Q.  Did  he  try  to  get  some  information  from  you  or  try  to  o-et 
)me  admissions  from  you? — A.  He  certainly  did. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  was  a  detective  connected  with  the 
hi gm re  and  White  Detective  Agency,  detectives  for  the  Chicago 
ribune? — A.  No;  he  said  he  represented  Governor  Deneen. 

Q.  He  told  you  he  represented  Governor  Deneen? — A.  And  I  sup- 
osed  he  did.  1 

Q.  Did  he  talk  with  you  about  your  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer 
k  ^lat  try  to  get  admissions  from  you  on  that  question?— 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 19 


290  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  there  was  some  conversation  in  that  line;  but  I  didn’t 
believe  him ;  I  thought  he  was  an  impostor. 

Q.  You  were  then  summoned  or  told  to  come  up  here? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  by  subpoena. 

Q.  By  whom  ? — A.  Our  deputy  sheriff  of  Madison  County,  I  think, 
and  some  gentleman  there  with  him ;  I  disremember  the  gentleman’s 
name. 

Q.  And  you  did  come  up  ? — A.  I  certainly  came  up. 

Q.  When  you  came  up  where  did  you  go? — A.  I  went  to  the  Morri¬ 
son  Hotel. 

Q.  Then  did  you  go  to  the  state’s  attorney’s  office? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  somebody  there?  Who  was  there  that  you  saw?— 
A.  Well,  I  was  there  quite  a  while.  I  don’t  know  what  you  have 
reference  to. 

Q.  When  you  went  to  the  state’s  attorney’s  office  did  you  see  Mr. 
Wayman,  the  state’s  attorney,  or  Mr.  Arnold,  or  Mr.  Marshall? — A. 
Mr.  Arnold  and  Mr.  Marshall,  I  think;  I  did  not  see  Mr.  Wayman. 

Q.  Which  one  did  you  see? — A.  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Marshall,  I  am 
not  positive;  I  rather  think  it  was. 

Q.  It  was  one  of  the  assistant  state’s  attorneys? — A.  Yes,  sir;  one 
of  the  assistant  state’s  attorneys. 

Q.  What  talk  did  you  have  with  Assistant  State’s  Attorney  Mar¬ 
shall  about  this  matter;  I  don’t  want  anything  else  about  your  testi¬ 
mony  as  to  your  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer,  or  anything  connected 
with  it? — A.  Well,  he  insisted - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yo. 

Q.  Tell  the  conversation  as  near  as  you  can. — A.  I  had  several 
conversations ;  I  disremember  the  first  one  I  had  with  him. 

Q.  Tell  the  conversation,  the  language  used  by  each  as  nearly  as 
possible,  and  if  you  can  not  do  that,  give  the  substance  as  nearly  as 
you  can. — A.  Well,  I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Marshall  some¬ 
thing  like  this :  He  says  to  me,  “  If  I  were  you  I  would  not  be  here 
telling  damned  lies  before  this  grand  jury;  I  would  tell  the  truth.’ 
Then  I  told  him  he  would  not  tell  me  that  outside  very  well  or  we 
might  mix. 

Q.  Had  you  been  before  the  grand  jury  then? — A.  I  think  I  had 
yes,  sir. 

Q.  WTiat  I  want  to  do  is  to  commence  before — just  before  you 

were  taken  to  the  grand-jury  room,  and  I  would  like  to  have  you - 

A.  (Interrupting.)  I  didn’t  have  any  particular  conversation  to  im 
recollection  with  anyone  of  the  assistant  state’s  attorneys. 

Q.  You  went  there,  you  don’t  remember  how,  and  was  taken  befon 
the  grand  jury? — A.  Yes,  sir;  when  my  turn  came. 

Q.  They  asked  you  there  in  relation  to  your  voting  for  Senatoi 
Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  1  was  in  the  grand-jurj 
room,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  /wanted  to  know. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  examined  by  whom? — A.  By  Mr.  Wayman. 

Q.  By  Mr.  Wayman  himself? — A.  By  Mr.  Wayman  himself;  yes 
sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  ask  in  relation  to  that  subject?  I  don’t  care  aboul 
anything  else.  * 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  make  the  same  objection  I  did  yes 
terday. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  291 

A.  He  asked  me  if  I  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer,  and  I  told  him 
^es.  According  to  my  recollection  I  told  him,  “  Certainly,  I  voted  for 
Senator  Lorimer  and  was  proud  of  it;  no  excuses  to  make.” 

Q.  What  took  place  then?  Did  he  ask  you  if  you  had  been  paid 
mything  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  him?— A.  I  absolutely  denied  it. 

Q.  You  didn’t  tell  this  to  Mr.  Wayman  individually,  but  in  answer- 
ng  his  question  to  the  whole  grand  jury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  All  the  conversation  you  had  with  Mr.  Wayman  in  the  grand 
ury  room  was  public  conversation  before  the  grand  jury?— A.  That 

s  all  at  that  time.  I  had  some  conversation — at  that  time — yes,  sir _ 

it  that  time.  _ 

Q.  Now,  did  Mr.  Wayman  say  to  you,  “Now,  didn’t  you  get  a 
housand  dollars  for  voting  for  Senator - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that.  Let  him  state  all  the  conversa- 
ion;  I  don’t  like  to  have  counsel  testify  in  relation  to  the  conver- 
ation. 

Senator  Burrows.  State  what  you  said  before  the  grand  jury. — A. 
Veil,  I  answered  questions  but  l"disremember  what  all  the  questions 
ie  asked  me  were. 

Senator  Burrows.  State  those  you  can  remember  and  your  re¬ 
gies. — A.  I  denied  receiving  any  money  for  voting  for" Senator 

jorimer. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  else? — A.  Denied  meeting  parties  in  St. 
xiuis;  I  didn’t  remember  of  meeting  them,  that  is,  at  that  date. 

Q.  They  asked  you  whether  or  not  you  had  made  any  promises 
r  agreements  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir;  no,  sir;  not 

t  that  time.  I  was  afterwards  before— the  first  time  I  guess  not _ 

guess  not — I  don’t  remember  that. 

Q.  Then  did  you  leave  the  grand  jury  room? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  those  different  questions  were  asked  you? — A.  Yes  sir* 

t  that  time  I  did.  ’ 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  day  of  the  week  or  day  of  the  month 
bat  was  you  first  went  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  That  was  the  5th 
r  7th  of  May;  it  was  right  along  there,  the  early  days  of  May. 

Q.  May  of  this  year?— A.  Yes,  sir;  May  of  this  year. 

Q.  When  you  left  the  grand  jury  room  were  you  put  in  the  custody 
f  an  officer? — A.. I  certainly  was. 

Q.  Were  you  indicted  at  that  time  or  was  there  any  complaint  or 
barge  made  against  you  at  any  place? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  put  you  in  charge  of  an  officer? — A.  Well,  I  presume  Mr. 

^  ayman  did.  To  my  knowledge  I  was  in  charge  directly  of  an 

fficer. 

Q.  Who  was  the  officer? — A.  Well,  there  were  two  or  three  dif- 
3rent  officers. 

Q.  The  first  one? — A.  I  disremember  his  name.  Mr.  O’Keefe  was 
'ith  me  most  of  the  time. 

Q.  Was  it  Oake? — A.  I  think  that  is  his  name. 

Q.  He  jvas  the  first  officer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  a  police  officer,  a  detective  appointed  to  the  State’s 
ttorney’s  office  at  that  time? — A.  Yes;  I  understood  so. 

Q.  Did  he  take  charge  of  you  at  that  time? — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  in  his  custody? — A.  I  disremember. 


292  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  About?— A.  The  first  night  I  think  I  went  to  dinner  with  him— 
the  first  night,  I  believe;  that  would  be  on  Wednesday  night  of  the 
week ;  and  I  remained  in  his  custody  and  he  kept  his  eye  on  me  like  I 
was  a  criminal. 

Q.  When  you  were  in  the  same  hotel  with  Officer  Oake  did  some 
lawyer  come  there  and  ask  you  and  Oake  wThat  right  Oake  had  to 
keep  you  in  custody,  and  did  Oake  tell  this  man - A.  (Interrupt¬ 

ing.)  *  That  was  not  Oake;  that  was  later  in  the  week. 

Q.  That  didn’t  take  place  with  him?— A.  No,  sir;  that  was  later. 
Oake  would  not  allow  me  to  telephone  to  friends,  and  was  keeping  his 
eye  on  me,  and  I  was  not  allowed  to  discuss  any  matters  at  all. 

Q.  Was  he  armed  at  the  time,  and  did  he  take  out  his  revolver  and 
his  billie  and  put  them  on  the  table  in  the  hotel,  so  you  could  see 

them? _ A.  He  did  not,  but  other  detectives  did;  I  suppose  he  was 

armed,  but  I  don’t  know  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Other  officers  did  ? — A..  Other  officers  did. 

Q.  Were  you  continuously  in  the  charge  of  some  officer  of  the  State  i 
attorney’s  office,  after  that  time? — A.  I  certainly  was. 

Q.  Up  to  what  time? — A.  Until  I  was  permitted  to  go  home  on  Sat 

urday  morning. 

Q.  What  day  ?—  A.  It  was  the  week  I  was  here;  I  disremember— 11 
was  from  the  5th,  6th,  7th,  8th,  or  9th,  or  something  of  that  kind,  oi 

"^Senator  Burrows.  It  was  Saturday  morning  of  that  week?— 
A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  You  came  up  here  what  day  of  the  week? — A.  I  came  her< 

Tuesday  evening.  ^  .  ,  ,, 

Q.  You  went  before  the  state’s  attorney— went  before  the  gram 

•jury  Wednesday  morning,  did  you? — A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  When  you  went  back  home  again,  did  an  officer  go  with  you  .- 

A.  Not  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  an  officer  from  the  state’s  attorney  s  office  come  down  am 

get  you  afterwards? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  When  after  that  Saturday  morning  that  you  went  home«- 
A.  That  was  the — well — I  wish  to  correct  that.  I  got  a  subpcen: 
served  to  me  to  go  to  Springfield  on  my  return  home  Saturday  evenm; 
of  this  week.  I  went  to  Springfield  from  this  subpoena  and  acknowJ 
edged  it,  and  a  detective  went  home  with  me  from  Springfield  am 

stayed  with  me.  0 _ • 

Q.  That  was  a  subpoena  to  appear  before  the  grand  jury  at  bprmfr 

field? — A.  Yes,  sir.  ,  _  T  , 

(>.  When  was  that? — A.  That  was  the  week  folloAvmg  I  was  hen 

O  Was  it  the  first  of  the  week  or  the  middle  of  the  week  or  tn 
last  i _ A.  Well,  I  think  it  was  on  Monday  following  the  Saturda 

*  Q^When^did  you  leave  Springfield  to  go  home?  Tou  got  ther 

Monday?— A.  That  evening. 

Q.  Monday  evening? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

O.  Did  an  officer  from  the  state’s  attorney  s  office  of  Cook  Count 
go  with  you  back  home  from  Springfield  on  Monday  evening?— £ 

Yes  sir  « 

Q.  Did  he  take  you  into  custody  ?— A.  Well,  I  was  not  arrested. 

Q.  Did  he  stav  with  vou  there  all  the  time?— A.  He  went  to  m 

house,  but  went 'to  St.  Louis,  I  believe,  one  day  while  at  my  horn 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  293 


in  the  country;  but  he  went  home  with  me  and  stayed  with  me,  but, 
of  course,  he  went  to  St.  Louis  during  one  day. 

Q.  He  was  with  you  wherever  you  went? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Paynter.  Was  that  officer  from  Chicago  or  Spring- 
field? — A.  Chicago. 

Senator  Gamble.  How  long  was  he  with  you? — A.  Four  days. 

Q.  At  your  home? — A.  Until  I  insisted  upon  having  him  called 
off. 

Q.  Did  he  stay  at  your  home? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  All  the  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Except  when  you  went  out,  and  then  he  went  with  you? — A. 
He  went  to  St.  Louis  during  that  time  by  himself. 

Q.  How  far  are  you  from  St.  Louis,  about? — A.  About  15  miles. 

Q.  You  can  go  there  by  electric  line? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  get  back 
in  two  or  three  hours,  at  any  time. 

Q.  Then  did  another  officer — I  will  withdraw  that — did  the  state’s 
ittorney  of  Sangamon  County,  Springfield,  send  any  officer  with  you 
after  you  had  been  examined  there  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  No, 
fir. 

Q.  He  never  had  you  in  custody? — A.  No,  sir;  they  don’t  use 
hose  methods. 

Q.  When  the  officer  left  Springfield— the  officer  from  the  state’s 
ittorney’s  office  in  Cook  County  left  with  you  to  go  to  your  home 
from  Springfield — did  he  have  any  warrant  against  you? — A.  No, 
fir. 

Q.  Had  there  been  any  indictment  or  complaint  or  charge  against 
?ou  of  a  criminal  nature?  Were  you  indicted  and  did  he  take  you 
nto  custody. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that  as  a  conclusion. 

Q.  (Continuing).  That  you  know  of? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that. 

Senator  Gamble.  Was  there  any  warrant  for  your  arrest? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  Or  a  subpoena  served  on  you? — A.  A  subpoena 
o  appear  at  Springfield. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  After  you  left  Springfield  and  went  back  home  was  there  any 
subpoena  or  warrant  against  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  A\  hat  was  that  officer’s  name? — A.  That  was  O’Keefe  that 
jailed  for  me. 

Q.  J.  J.  O’Keefe,  I  think. 

(No  answer.) 

Senator  Gamble.  Do  you  intend  to  show  by  this  witness  duress? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  There  is  another  conference  committee  of  the 
knited  States  Senate  that  is  proceeding  with  its  investigation  into 
natters  of  the  third  degree. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  every  State  in  the  Union  ought  to  have 

)ne. 

Senator  Gamble.  Proceed  as  rapidly  as  you  can. 

Senator  Johnston.  What  did  the  officer  say  he  accompanied  you 
from  Springfield  for? — A.  He  claimed  it  was  for  my  own  protec- 


294  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

tion.  I  told  him  positively  that  I  needed  no  protection ;  that  I  could 
protect  myself. 

Q.  Did  he  insist  upon  staying  at  your  house? — A.  He  was  under 
orders  from  a  gentleman  in  Chicago. 

Senator  Gamble.  Did  he  pay  his  board  while  there?— A.  He  gave 
my  wife  a  present;  he  offered  to  pay  me  and  I  told  him  “  no,"  and 
he  gave  my  wife  a  present  for  his  board. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Who  was  the  next  officer  who  had  charge  of  you? — A.  Well,  I 
think  after  that  time  I  was  under  the  direction  of  O'Keefe  until  I 
read  what  is  called  the  “  riot  act  ”  to  Wayman. 

Q.  When  was  that? — A.  That  was  about  a  week  before  the  first 
Browne  trial,  when  I  told  Wayman  no  more  detectives  for  me.  k‘  If 
you  have  got  a  warrant,  arrest  me ;  if  I  am  guilty  of  anything,  arrest 
me ;  but  no  more  detectives ;  I  shall  not  submit  to  detectives  any 
longer.”  That  was  my  conversation. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  this  incident  of  a  young  lawyer  coming  there 
and  saying  to  you  and  some  officer  of  the  state  attorney’s  office, 
“  What  are  you  holding  this  man  for  ?  ”  Do  you  remember  that  cir¬ 
cumstance? — A.  No;  the  substance  I  do;  I  don’t  remember  the  exact 
language. 

Q.  What  officer  had  you  in  charge  when  that  took  place?  Was 
that  O'Keefe  or  some  one  else  ? — A.  I  think  it  was  O'Keefe ;  I  don’t 
believe  I  was  under  the  charge  of  anyone  except  O'Keefe  after  my 
first  appearance  in  Chicago. 

Q.  Did  O’Keefe  then  go  to  Chicago  with  you  and  stay  with  you 
at  the  different  hotels  or  wherever  you  were  kept?— A.  He  did 
until  a  week  before  the  Browne  trial;  then  no  more  detectives  after 
that  for  me. 

Q.  He  did  stay  here  until  that  time?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  was  he  in  the  room  of  the  same  hotel  or  place  here  in 
Chicago  when  you  and  Detective  O’Keefe  were  there,  when  this 
young  law}7er  came  in  and  asked  O  Keefe,  u  Why  are  you  holding 
him  in  custody  ?  ” — A.  I  certainly  was.  I  remember  the  conversa¬ 
tion,  I  think ;  but  I  paid  no  attention  to  it  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  the  detective  threaten  that  if  this  lawyer  did  not  get  out 
that  he  would  arrest  him  and  take  him  before  the  grand  jury?— A. 
It  made  him  rather  spunky;  I  disremember  the  exact  words,  but  he 
said  something  in  that  line. 

Q.  He  gave  him  to  understand  that  he  would  have  to  keep  away  ? — 
A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  The  first  trial  of  Browne  commenced  about  the  7th  to  the  10th 
of  June;  that  is  right,  isn’t  it?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  so. 

Q.  Now,  after  you  were  before  this  grand  jury,  the  first  grand 
jury,  and  told  Mr.  Wayman,  the  state’s  attorney,  and  the  grand  jury 
that  you  never  got  any  money  from  anybody,  Browne  or  anybody  else, 
for  voting  for  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator,  were  you  in¬ 
dicted? — A.  I  was  indicted  for  perjury  either  the  second  or  third 
day  I  was  here — I  am  not  positive  which — after  my  denial. 

Q.  Was  it  the  second  or  third  day  after  you  first  went  before  the 
grand  jury? — A.  It  was  either  the  second  or  third  day,  I  guess  the 
second.  I  am  not  positive  whether  the  second  or  third  day. 

Q.  You  were  indicted  for  perjury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  By  the  same  grand  jury  you  had  been  before? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  295 

Q.  Was  it  for  perjury  for  not  telling  them  you  had  received  money 
’or  voting  for  Lorimer  ? — A.  That  I  had  not  met  Robert  Wilson — no 
noney  consideration  in  it  at  all — but  that  I  had  not  met  Robert 
Wilson. 

Q.  After  you  were  indicted  for  perjury  were  you  taken  by  the 
state’s  attorney  or  any  of  his  assistants  and  talked  with  about  your 
estimony  and  about  your  indictment  ? — A.  I  guess  I  was. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  the  first  thing  that  was  done  after  you  were 
ndicted  for  perjury  by  him? — A.  They  kept  flaunting  the  indict- 
nent  for  perjury  against  me. 

Q.  Doing  what? — A.  Putting  it  in  front  of  my  face,  showing  it  to 
ne  and  speaking  to  me. 

Senator  Gamble.  Who  did  that? — A.  The  assistant  state’s  attor- 
ley  and  the  state’s  attorney  himself. 

Q.  Tell  the  names  of  the  assistant  state’s  attorneys. — A.  Mr.  Mar- 

hall. 

Q.  Did  State’s  Attorney  Wayman  do  that,  too? — A.  He  didn’t 
hrow  it  in  my  face ;  he  would  show  it  to  me  and  talk  to  me  about 
osing  my  home,  putting  my  home  on  one  side  and  the  penitentiary 
>n  the  other. 

Q.  State  to  this  honorable  committee  what  State’s  Attorney  Way- 
nan  told  you  about  the  indictment  for  perjury? — A.  He  told  me  if 
^  would  go  before  the  grand  jury  and  state  that  I  had  received  some 
noney  from  Browne  and  Robert  E.  Wilson  that  I  would  be  cleared 
tnd  go  home  a  free  man.  That  is  what  he  told  me. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anything  else  said?— A.  Well,  I  told  him  that 

had  told  him  all  I  knew,  and  he  denied  that  I  had.  We  kept  up 
he  conversation,  and  he  said  he  was  a  farmer  himself  in  his  early 
lavs  South.  I  told  him  I  was  a  farmer,  and  he  told  me,  he  says: 

•  You  come  up  here  ’’—the  conversation  drifted  along  this  line — 

•  and  let  these  Chicago  lawyers  get  a  hold  of  you  and  they  will  take 
Tour  farm  away  from  you.”  That  was  the  line  of  talk ;  and  he  told 
ne  to  rest  over  that  night — that  was  Friday  evening — and  to  come 
n  by  10  o’clock  on  Saturday  morning  and  make  a  confession,  and 
le  would  have  the  perjury  charge  expunged  from  the  record,  and  I 
vould  go  home  a  free  man.  That  was  the  sum  and  substance  of  the 
onversation. 

Q.  They  had  more  than  an  hour  to  talk  to  you  about  that? — A. 
fes,  sir;  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  that  conversation;  what  time  did  it 
;nd? — A.  It  was  somewhere  between  5.20  and  6.30;  it  was  6.30  when 

left  the  Criminal  Court  Building  that  evening. 

Q.  Then  were  you  put  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  when  you  left 
he  State’s  attorney? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  that  officer? — A.  That  was  Mr.  O’Keefe. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  with  you.? — A.  He  took  me  back  to  the  Morri- 
on  Hotel. 

Q.  Did  he  stay  there  with  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  All  the  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  he  that  took  his  revolver  billie  out  and  put  it  on  the 
able  in  your  presence? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  talk  with  you  about  what  the  State’s  attorney  talked 
o  you  about — about  your  going  back  and  telling  what  the  State’s 
ittorney  wanted  you  to  tell? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


296  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  What  did  Detective  O’Keefe  from  the  State’s  attorney’s  office 
say  to  yon  in  that  respect? — A.  He  said:  “  Link,  I  would  not  stand 
by  the  other  fellows,  I  would  stand  by  Wayman,  he  is  the  man  to 
stand  by  in  this  matter;  make  a  confession.  I  don’t  like  to  see  you 
get  into  trouble  and  you  are  going  to  get  into  trouble.” 

Q.  Tell  the  rest  of  it.  A.  That  was  the  substance  of  the  conversa¬ 
tion  ;  that  was  the  principal  point  of  the  conversation. 

Q,  He  said:  “  You  go  back  and  tell  Wayman  ” - 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  witness  has  stated  the  conversation,  and  it  is 
not  necessary  for  counsel  to  put  his  construction  or  resume  on  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  how  long  during  this  conversation  between  you  and 
O’Keefe,  how  long  did  O’Keefe  talk  to  you? — A.  Off  and  on,  but 
I  disremember  the  number  of  times;  it  was  not  continuous,  of  course, 
but  off  and  on  during  the  time  he  was  with  me. 

Q.  Off  and  on  between  the  times  you  and  the  state’s  attorney  had 
the  talk  and  he  took  you  back  there  ? — A.  Prior  to  that  night,  too. 

Q.  All  the  time  you  were  in  his  custody? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  N ow,  did  Officer  O’Keefe  take  you  back  to  the  State’s  attorney’s 
office  the  next  morning? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  would  be  Saturday  morning? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with,  or  did  Thomas  Maguire,  of  the  Maguire  & 
White  Detective  Agency,  talk  with  you? — A.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  present 
nearly  every  time  I  met  Wayman,  and  Wayman  and  myself  were  in 
Way  man’s  room. 

Q.  What  did  Maguire  say  to  you? — A.  He  tried  to  put  words  in 
my  mouth  several  times. 

Q.  Words  about  what? — A.  He  said  I  should  not  be  friendly  to  the 
Browne  side,  and  the  Lorimer  side,  and  so  forth ;  “  It  doesn’t  look 
well,  Link;  that  don’t  look  well.”  I  told  him  it  was  none  of  his  busi¬ 
ness  ;  I  would  take  up  for  my  friends  wherever  I  saw  fit  to  take  them. 

Q.  Did  Thomas  Maguire,  the  detective,  say  this  to  you — that  you 
had  better  tell  what  you  knew  or  you  would  go  to  the  penitentiary; 
did  Maguire  say  that  to  you? — A.  I  rather  think  one  of  the  assistant 
State’s  attorneys  told  me  that;  I  don’t  know  whether  Maguire  said 
that  to  me  or  not,  but  his  conversation  ran  on  that  line.  I  think  that 
was  Arnold;  twenty  minutes  before  5  o’clock  that  evening  of  that 
week. 

Q.  What  was  that  conversation  you  had  with  Assistant  State’s  At¬ 
torney  Arnold  in  which  he  said  that  to  you? — A.  Mr.  Arnold  came 
to  me"  and  says,  “  Link,  you  have  got  just  twenty  minutes  to  save  your 
life.”  I  says,  “What  do  you  mean?  ”  He  says,  “  You  have  got  just 
twenty  minutes  to  go  in  and  tell  all  you  know  to  save  your  life.”  I 
says,  “  I  have  told  all  I  know.”  He  says,  “All  right,  Link,  it  is  your 
funeral;  it  is  not  mine.”  He  goes  into  the  grand  jury  room  and  an 
indictment  was  returned  that  evening.  I  told  him  I  had  told  all  1 
knew.  #  nri 

Senator  Paynter.  An  indictment  against  you? — A.  Yes,  sir;  for 
perjury. 

Q.  Arnold  said  that  to  you — A.  He  said  I  had  twenty  minutes  to 
save  my  life. 

Q.  That  was  just  before - A.  (Interrupting.)  Twenty  minutes 

before  the  grand  jury  adjourned  at  5  o’clock,  Friday  afternoon  or 
evening. 


I  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  297 


Q.  Were  you  told  that  night  that  you  were  in  the  custody  of  an  offi- 
er  of  the  State’s  attorney  and  that  you  had  been  indicted  for  per- 
ury  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  told  you  that?  Was  it  a  detective  or  one  of  the  assistant 
state’s  attorneys? — A.  It  was,  I  think,  Mr.  Wayman  himself  that 
old  me  that. 

Q.  Mr.  Wayman  himself  told  you  that? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Arnold  say  to  you  in  that  conversation  that  you  have 
ieen  referring  to,  just  before  you  were  indicted  for  perjury,  that  if 
ou  didn’t  tell  what  they  wanted  you  to  that  they  would  send  you  to 
he  penitentiary  ? — A.  That  it  was  my  funeral;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  use  the  word  “  penitentiary  ” — that  he  would  send  you  to 
he  penitentiary? — A.  I  am  not  quite  certain;  I  am  not  positive;  but 
e  used  that  kind  of  terms  to  me. 

Q.  Did  he  lay  special  stress  upon  the  word  “  penitentiary  ”  in  talk- 
ng  to  you  ? — A.  Mr.  Wayman  laid  more  stress  on  that  than  any  of  his 
ssistants. 

Q.  That  is,  that  he  would  send  you  to  the  penitentiary? — A.  He 
•ictured  it  very,  very  strenuously  between  the  penitentiary  and  my 
ome. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  state  what  he  said? — A.  He  said,  “It 
dll  be  much  better  for  you  to  be  here  with  your  family  than  to  go  to 
le  penitentiary  and  lose  your  home.”  He  pictured  what  the  peni- 
mtiary  was,  and  so  forth. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  did  he  say?— A.  That  I  might  lose  my 
ome,  and  he  put  a  great  deal  of  stress  on  the  penitentiary  and  my 
ome — I  being  a  fanner  away  from  my  home  and  my  family. 

Senator  Burrows.  Was  this  just  before  the  indictment — A.  Yes, 

ir. 

Senator  Burrows.  How  long  before? — A.  Pardon  me,  I  will 
hange  that.  I  think  that  was  right  after  that,  5  o’clock  when  they 
djourned,  after  the  indictment;  yes,  sir.  This  conversation  took 
lace  with  Mr.  Wayman  and  myself.  I  didn’t  go  before  the  grand 
iry  until  Saturday  morning. 

Q.'  Again? — A.  Again;  this  was  on  this  Friday  evening. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  say  anything  in  picturing  the  penitentiary 
n  one  side  and  your  home  on  the  other  about  your  wife  ? — A.  Why, 
udainly. 

Q.  Tell  the  committee  what  he  said? — A.  Well,  that  I  would  lose 
ly  home,  and  that  meant  I  would  lose  my  wife,  too. 

Q.  Did  he  say  what  would  be  done  if  you  would  go  before  the 
rand  jury  and  tell  what  he  wanted  you  to? — A.  That  I  could  go 
ome  a  free  man  and  not  a  perjurer  in  any  manner,  shape,  or  form. 
Senator  Burrows.  If  what? — A.  If  I  went  before  the  grand  jury 
nd  made  an  acknowledgment. 

Senator  Burrows.  An  acknowledgment  of  what? — A.  If  I  had 
?ceived  $1,000  from  Browne. 

Senator  Frazier.  Was  that  true  that  you  had  received  $1,000? — A. 
3hall  not  deny  it ;  it  is  true. 

Q.  Did  not  the  state’s  attorney  say  to  you  that  if  you  would  go 
a  and  say  that  you  had  received  $1,000  from  Browne  for  voting  for 
William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  that  you  could  <ro 
ome? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  not  true? — A.  That  was  not  true;  no,  sir. 


298  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  that  was  what  the  state’s  attorney  wanted  you  to  tell  the 
grand  jury,  was  it  not? — A.  I  presume  just  two  answers  if  I  would 
answer  when  I  went  before  the  grand  jury;  that  is  all  that  Mr.  Way- 
man  asked  me,  was  those  two  questions. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  were  they? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  examining  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit  he  should  state  to  the  committee  what 

they  were? 

Senator  Burrows.  We  will  probably  get  at  that. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  there  tell  you  at  that  time  that  he  indicted 
you,  and  that  he  was  going  to  take  you  before  the  criminal  court,  if 
you  did  not  tell  the  grand  jury  what  he  wanted  you  to  tell? — A.  I 
don’t  quite  understand  the  question. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  tell  you  that  you  had  been  indicted  and  that 
he  would  take  you  before  the  criminal  court  for  trial  on  that  indict¬ 
ment  if  you  didn’t  go  before  the  grand  jury  and  tell  that  body  what 
Mr.  Wayman  wanted  you  to  tell? — A.  Why,  certainly;  he  said  I 
would  have  to  give  a  bond,  and  it  was  a  $15,000  bond,  and  they  made 
it  $5,000,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  tell  you  what,  he  would  do  if  you  would  go 
before  the  grand  jury  and  tell  them  what  he  wanted  you  to  tell  them? 
Did  he  tell  you  what  he  would  do  with  the  indictment? — A.  Nolle 
pros  it  and  have  it  expunged  from  the  record,  so  in  future  years  it 
would  not  be  on  the  record. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Mr.  Wayman,  “  Well,  I  will  go  before  the 
grand  jury  and  lie  if  I  have  to;  but  I  don’t  want  to?”  Did  you 
say  that  or  that  in  substance? — A.  That  in  substance. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  then  take  you  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  I 
went  with  Mr.  Wayman  before  the  grand  jury  a  few  minutes  be¬ 
fore  10  o’clock  Saturday,  the  following  day  after  this  conversation 
took  place. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  the  grand  jury  then  on  the  questions  of  Mr.  Way- 
man  what  Mr.  Wayman  wanted  you  to  tell  them? 

Senator  Burrows.  What  did  he  tell? 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  the  grand  jury,  then? — A.  I  told  the  grand 
jury  that  I  had  received  $1,000  from  Browne  and  that  I  had  received 
$900  through  Robert  Wilson;  that  is  what  I  told  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  the  grand  jury  that  you  had  received  that  money 
or  any  part  of  it  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United  States 
Senator? — A.  Positively  no. 

Q.  Just  before  you  went  before  the  grand  jury  that  last  time  did 
Mr.  Wayman  tell  you  that  if  you  would  go  and  tell  the  grand  jury 
what  he  wanted  you  to  you  would  keep  out  of  trouble  and  keep  from 
disgracing  your  family? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  went  before  the  grand  jury  with  Mr.  Wayman  the 
last  time  and  told  the  grand  jury  what  Mr.  Wayman  asked  you  to. 
what,  if  anything,  did  Mr.  Wayman  or  his  office  do  in  relation  to 
the  indictment  against  you  for  perjury? — A.  Well,  he  took  me  before 
Judge  McSurely,  I  think  it  was,  and  said:  “Mr.  Link  has  made  a 
clean  breast  of  the  whole  affair.”  I  didn’t  know  what  he  called  a 
u  clean  breast,”  but  those  were  his  words.  I  denied  making  a  clean 
breast  of  anything  except  the  truth. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  have  the  indictment  against  you  quashed? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  299 


Q.  He  took  you  before  Judge  McSurely  and  asked  to  have  it  done, 
nd  Judge  McSurely  did  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  still  continue  in  the  custody  of  the  officer? — A.  No,  sir; 
e  allowed  me  to  go  home. 

Q.  Did  he  put  you  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  after  that  time?— 
l.  Certainly. 

Q.  When? — A.  The  following  week. 

Q.  That  was  Saturday  that  he  dismissed  the  indictment  against 
ou  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

t  Q*  When  did  you  go  home? — A.  The  morning  train,  11.35,  on  the 
'•  #and  I.  that  morning;  11.35  that  morning;  I  hurried  over  to  the 
iain. 

Q.  When,  the  next  week,  were  you  put  in  the  custody  of  another 
fficer  ? — A.  Monday  night  or  Tuesday  night— I  think  ’it  was  Mon- 
ay  night  of  the  following  week.  A  subpoena  was  served  on  me  to 
o  to  Springfield,  and  immediately  on  my  return  home  on  that  Sat- 
rday  evening— I  returned  home  about  6.30 ;  that  is  my  home  town  ; 
didn't  get  home  quite  fhat  early. 

Q.  Did  that  officer  or  some  other  officer  from  the  State’s  attorney’s 
fice  keep  you  in  custody  all  the  time — until  about  the  time  of  the 
rst  Browne  trial  ?— A.  I  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wayman  that  I  would 
A  submit  to  it,  and  told  him  personally  when  I  came  to  Chicago, 
)  more  detectives  for  me ;  that  I  would  not  play  hide  and  go  seek  any 
>nger;  that  I  was  not  a  criminal,  and  that  I  would  not  stand  for  it. 
wrote  him  such  a  letter  from  my  home,  and  told  him  to  recall  Mr. 
"Keefe,  which  he  did. 

Q.  When  was  that?— A.  After  he  was  with  me;  I  think  about  four 
lys  there. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  day  of  the  month  that  was,  or  what 
onth  ? — A.  No,  sir ;  it  was  during  the  month  of  May. 

Q.  When  was  it  with  respect  to  the  commencement  of  the  first 
rowne  trial  ?  A.  It  was  some  little  time  before  the  commencement 

!  the  trial. 

Q.  About  how  long  ? — A.  About  three  or  four  weeks ;  perhaps  three 
eeks  or  something;  I  don’t  know.  I  told  him  positively  that  I 
ould  not  submit  to  it,  and  when  I  saw  Mr.  Wayman,  a  week  before 
e  first  Browne  trial,  I  told  him  that  personally. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  know  is,  if  you  were  put  into  the  custody  of  an 
■freer  from  the  State’s  attorney’s  office  after  you  were  indicted  for 
Tjury  and  that  indictment  for  perjury  had  been  dismissed? — 
..  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  still  kept  in  the  custody  of  an  officer?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  charge  against  you  of  any  kind  that  you  know 
*  ? — A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  After  that  indictment  for  perjury  had  been  dismissed? — 
Well,  by  Mr.  Wayman’s  advice  I  refused  to  answer  questions  at 
>  >ringfield.  I  had  to  go  to  Springfield  two  or  three  times,  and  at 
Is  advice  refused  to  answer  the  questions. 

Q.  Were  you  summoned  before  the  grand  jury  in  Springfield  as  a 
\tness? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  know  that  you  had  been  summoned  as  a  wit- 
iss  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  talk  with  you  about  whether  you  should  go  before  the 
:and  jury  in  response  to  the  subpoena  of  the  court? — A.  Not  as  to 


300  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

whether  I  should  go,  but  as  to  whether  I  should  answer  certain  ques¬ 
tions  or  not. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  whether  or  not  you  should  answer  questions 
that  might  be  asked  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  By  the  grand  jury  or  the  state’s  attorney  of  Sangamon 
County? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you  ? — A.  He  told  me  not  to  answer,  but  to 
stand  on  the  ground  that  I  might  incriminate  myself  by  answering 
any  questions  before  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Wayman  that  you  were  not  afraid  of  incrim¬ 
inating  yourself? — A.  Certainly;  I  told  him  I  wanted  to  answer  the 
questions  my  way  that  were  put  to  me  there. 

Q,  What  did  he  say  to  you? — A.  “  Don’t  do  it,  Link;  don’t  do  it.” 

Q.  Did  he  know  that  the  state’s  attorney  and  the  grand  jury  of 
Sangamon  County  had  summoned  you  before  the  grand  jury  to 
testify  in  relation  to  these  matters? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you  as  to  the  subject-matter?  Did  he  tell 
you  not  to  answer  the  questions  of  the  state’s  attorney  or  the  grand 
jury  of  Sangamon  County? — A.  If  the  senatorial  committee  please, 
the"  question  all  hinged  upon  one  answer,  “  No  ”  or  “  Yes,’1  to  one 
certain  question,  and  that  question  was,  “  Did  you  receive  or  were 
vou  offered  or  do  you  know  of  anybody  being  offered  any  mone}^  in 
Springfield  for  voting  on  any  question?”  That  was  the  question, 
and  when  I  finally  got  permission  from  Mr.  Wayman,  which  I 
answered  positively,  right  straight  out,  “  No.”  I  answered,  “No.” 
That  is  all  there  was  about  that.  He  wouldn’t  let  me  answer  the 
question  at  all. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wayman  tell  you  to  answer  “  No  ”  to  that  question 
put  by  the  state’s  attorney  and  grand  jury  in  Sangamon  County?— 
A.  He  had  a  representative — Mr.  Reed,  the  lawyer  there  at  Spring- 
field — that  read  a  great  many  decisions  in  relation  to  incriminating 
yourself,  etc. 

Q.  Did  he  send  an  assistant  down  there — an  assistant  attorney— to 
Sangamon  County  grand  jury  with  you? — A.  Not  with  me;  but 
there  was  one  there. 

Q.  He  met  you  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  To  advise  you  and  represent  you  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  lie? — A.  An  attorney  by  the  name  of  Reed. 

Q.  F.  F.  Reed? — A.  I  don’t  know  his  initials;  but  his  name  was 
Reed,  from  Aurora,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  in  the  criminal  court  building 
about  a  week  prior  to  the  trial  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  with  H.  J.  C. 
Beckemeyer,  in  the  criminal  court  building  about  a  week  before  the 
first  Browne  trial  began?— A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  just  about  a  week 
before — a  week  prior. 

Q.  Did  Beckemeyer  say  to  you,  “  Our  testimony  will  be  alike, 
word  for  word  ”  ?  And  did  you  say,  “  No,  Beck,  I  have  got  the  best 
of  you ;  I  promised  to  vote  for  Lorimer  eight  or  ten  days  before 
Browne  spoke  to  me  about  it  ”  ? — A.  That  conversation  took  place. 

Q.  As  I  read  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Beckemeyer  say  to  you,  “  Yes ;  you  have  the  best  of  me  in 
that  ”  ?  Then  did  you  say  to  Beckemeyer :  “  Beck,  I  don’t  believe  that 
Lorimer  ever  put  up  a  dollar  for  his  election,  or  that  anybody  else 
ever  put  up  a  dollar  for  him  ”  ?  And  did  Beckemeyer  say,  “  I  don  t 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOBIMER.  301 

)elieve  he  did,  either  ”  ? — A.  That  was  the  conversation,  word  for 
vord,  as  near  as  I  can  remember  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  money  or  any  other  thing  of  value 
-rom  anybody— Browne,  Wilson,  or  anybody  else— on  condition,  or 
>n  the  promise  or  agreement  or  understanding,  directly  or  indirectly, 
hat  you  were  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Sen- 
dor? — A.  I  certainly  did  not. 

Senator  Gamble.  Or  after  he  had  voted  for  Lorimer. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  money  from  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  Bob 
/Vilson,  or  B.  E.  Wilson,  whatever  his  name  is,  or  anybody  else,  or 
rom  any  source  whatever,  or  did  you  receive  any  other  thing  of 
'alue  at  any  time  from  anybody  because  you  had  voted  for  William 
jorimer  for  L'nited  States  Senator? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  any  consideration  moving  to  you,  or  to  anybody 
or  you,  or  for  your  benefit,  in  any  place,  from  any  source  whatever, 
nth  the  understanding  that  you  were  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer 
or  United  States  Senator,  or  if  you  had  voted  for  William  Lorimer 
or  United  States  Senator,  any  consideration  of  any  kind? — A.  None 
whatever. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator 
or  any  other  reason  than  that  you  liked  him,  and  that  you  favored 
nd  that  your  people  favored  the  things  he  favored  in  relation  to  the 
eep  waterway  from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf? — A.  That  is  why  I 
oted  for  him. 

Q.  1.  our  county,  the  largest  county  in  your  senatorial  district,  is 
ladison  County  ?- — A.  Yes,  sir.  It  borders  on  the  Mississippi. 

Q.  And  bordering  on  the  Mississippi,  it  would  be  affected  by  this 
eep  waterway? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  stated  to  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  on  the  direct  exam- 
lation  that  you  heard  Senator  Lorimer  speak  on  the  deep  waterway ; 
as  that  in  your  county  or  one  of  the  counties  in  vour  senatorial 
istrict  ? — A.  Pie  spoke  three  times  in  the  fall  of  1908  in  Madison 
’ounty,  and  had  charts  with  him  explaining  the  plans,  etc.,  and  the 
racticability,  and  I  was  deeply  interested.  I  heard  him  at  two 
laces,  and  I  heard  him  at  Granite  City  and  also  at  Edwardsville, 
nd  I  was  taken  up,  naturally,  with  his  arguments. 

Q.  As  to  the  deep  waterway? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  had  plans  and  charts  of  the  proposed  way? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  William  Lorimer  talk  upon  that  same  subject  in 
le  legislature  ? —  A.  I  heard  every  word,  and  that  was  Avhen  I  made 
p  my  mind,  which  was  in  March,  1909;  I  made  up  my  mind  that  if 
could  elect  William  Lorimer  Senator  I  would  do  so,  provided  we 
mid  not  elect  a  Democrat;  with  that  provision. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  William  Lorimer  talk  on  the  deep  waterway  be- 
me  the  legislature  there  at  the  same  session  at  which  he  was  elected 
enator? — A.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  elected  the  following  May  after 
Tarch.  J 

Q.  Was  the  deep  waterway  the  liveliest  issue  before  that  session 
f  the  legislature? — A.  Unquestionably. 

Q.  And  the  speech  you  heard  Senator  Lorimer  make  at  Edwards- 
dle  and  Granite  City  that  he  made  when  going  through  the  State 
as  upon  that  subject  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  the  people  in  your  senatorial  district  almost  universally 
>r  that  waterway  ? — A.  They  were,  provisionally.  That  is,  with  the 


302  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

understanding  that  the  United  States  Government  would  meet  Illi¬ 
nois  and  Illinois  not  to  have  to  issue  $20,000,000  in  bonds. 

Q,.  Did  you  ever  tell  anybody  else  that  you  voted  for  William 
Lorimer  for  a  money  consideration  or  any  other  consideration  of 
value? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  Anybody  else;  has  he  ever  told  anybody?  Did  he 
ever  tell  anybody  ? 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  anybody  you  did? — A.  No,  sir. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q„  You  told  the  committee  about  being  in  the  custody  of  the  offi¬ 
cers,  and  about  the  third-degree  methods? — A.  I  don’t  know  all 
about  the  third-degree  attorneys. 

Q.  You  told  them  that  there  was  third-degree  methods? — A.  1 
was  told  there  were. 

Q.  Who  told  you  so? — A.  Rumors  are  about  the  criminal  court 
building;  reporters,  I  guess,  and  things  of  that  kind. 

•  Q.  Mr.  Link,  when  you  went  before  the  grand  jury  the  first  time, 
did  you  tell  them  the  truth  or  did  you  lie? — A.  I  kept  saying  I 
didmt  remember  until  Wayman  wrapped  me  around  his  finger. 

Q.  Did  you  testify  that  you  had  not  been  paid  $1,000  by  Browne, 
and  that  you  had  not  received  $500  from  Wilson,  or  didn’t  you? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that;  he  has  been  all  over  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Answer  the  question.. 

A.  At  that  first  interrogation,  the  question  of  Robert  Wilson  was 
discussed,  but  not  the  Browne  thousand  dollars. 

Q.  All  right,  then;  the  one  they  first  interrogated  you  about  when 
you  went  before  the  grand  jury,  ns  to  whether  or  not  you  had  met 
Wilson  in  St.  Louis? — A.  I  denied  it. 

Q.  Was  that  true  or  a  falsehood? — A.  I  guess  it  was  a  falsehood; 
but  I  didn’t  remember  of  meeting  him  at  that  time  or  didn’t  know 
the  date. 

Q.  You  stated  you  did  not  meet  him  at  all,  didn’t  you? — A.  I 
stated  afterwards  that  I  did  meet  him. 

Q.  You  stated  afterwards  you  did  meet  him,  but  that  was.  after¬ 
wards;  after  you  had  been  indicted  for  perjury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Link,  did  Mr.  Wayman  or  any  of  his  assistants  or 
any  officer  at  any  time  ask  you  to  tell  anything  that  was  not  true; 
yes,  or  no,  please? — A.  They  asked  me  so  many  questions,  that  is  a 
pretty  hard  question. 

Q.'Did  anyone  at  any  time  ever  ask  you  to  tell  a  lie? — A.  Not  in 
that  specific  terms. 

Q.  Or  in  any  other  terms?— A.  Not  in  that  kind  of  terms. 

Q.  Did  anyone  at  any  time  tell  you  to  testify  to  any  fact  other 
than  the  truth? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  the  same  thing  he  has  answered  two  or 
three  times. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  him  answer  the  question. 

A.  Well,  I  had  so  many  conversations  with  him,  it  is  hard  for  me 
to  answer  just  any  remark,  Senator. 

Q.  Tell  me  if  anyone  connected  with  the  State’s  attorney’s  office, 
the  State’s  attorney,  his  assistants,  officers,  employees  asked  you  to 
lie? — A.  Thev  didn’t  ask  me  to  lie. 

Q.  Now,  after  you  were  indicted  for  perjury,  you  were  given  the 
alternative  of  going  before  the  grand  jury  and  telling  the  truth,  were 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER,.  303 


70U  not,  or  be  prosecuted  for  perjury? — A.  I  came  before  the  grand 
ury  to  clear  myself. 

Q.  And  tell  them  the  truth? — A.  To  clear  myself. 

Q.  What  do  I  understand  by  “clearing  yourself?” — A.  Telling 
hem  I  had  received  some  money.  -  * 

Q.  Hadn't  you  received  some  money? — A.  Well,  yes. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Link,  this  young  lawyer  that  you  speak  about  coni¬ 
ng  up  to  the  Morrison  House,  what  was  his  name?— A.  Well  there 
vas  more  than  one. 

Q.  This  young  lawyer  he  referred  to  the  night  O'Keefe  went  to 
he  door  and  said,  “  If  you  don’t  let  this  man  alone  I  will  take  you 
lefore  the  grand  jury.”  Do  you  know  who  that  man  was?— A.  His 
iame  was  Erbstein. 


Q.  When  did  you  se$  Erbstein  last?— A.  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  He  was  the  lawyer  that  defended  Browne  in  the  trial  in  which 
■ou  were  a  witness?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  saw  him  at  that  trial. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  Erbstein? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  employed  him? — A.  I  was  through  answering  for  any- 
ody.  I  will  answer  it  that  way. 

Q*  will?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  with  your  third  degree  methods. 
Q.  they  were  the  methods  that  made  you  tell  the  truth— they 
ldn’t  make  you  tell  a  falsehood,  did  they  ?— A.  They  didn’t  ask  me 
i  lie ;  that  is  true. 

Q.  You  didn’t  tell  the  truth,  did  you,  until  you  got  the  third  de- 
ree  methods?— A.  Yes;  I  did. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you— you  are  the  one  that  knows,  not  I  ? — A.  Well 
suppose  when  I  denied  seeing  Wilson  when  I  did  meet  him. 

Q.  You  denied,  first,  having  any  money?— A.  There  was  no  ques- 
on  asked  about  that.  I  said  I  didn’t  meet  him. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  deny  getting  any  money  from  him? — A.  I  said  I 
Kin  t  meet  him,  and  how  could  I  get  any  money  if  didn’t  meet  him? 

Q.  Didn't  you  deny  getting  any  money  from  him?— A.  I  don’t 
'member. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  deny  getting  any  money  from  Browne? — A.  That 
uestion  was  not  asked  me  on  the  first  occasion. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  say  before  the  grand  jury  that  you  didn’t  get  any 
loney  from  Browne,  and  didn’t  you  only  say  you  got  it  after  the 
urd  degree  methods?— A.  The  perjury  charge  was  placed  against 
e  for  simply,  saying  I  didn’t  meet  Wilson. 

Q.  The  perjury  charge  was  correct,  was  it  not?— A.  Afterwards  it 
roved  it  was;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  they  give  you  a  chance  to  go  back  before  the  grand 
iry  and  make  a  clean  breast  of  it? — A.  To  save  my  life? 

Q.  Didn’t  they  give  you  a  chance  to  go  back?— A.’  I  didn’t  go 
ick;  I  told  them  all  I  knew.  g 


Q.  ^ou  lied? — A.  I  don't  know  about  that. 

Q.  >sow,  Mr.  Link,  you  did  go  back  before  the  grand  jury? _ A.  I 

rtainly  did;  on  Saturday  morning. 

Q.  You  told  the  truth,  and  then  they  nollied  the  indictment  for 

Tjury  against  you;  didn’t  they?— A.  Yes,  sir;  after  I  answered 
ose  two  questions. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Link,  you  were  out  under  bonds  as  a  witness 
;>u  not,  in  the  criminal  court? — A.  No,  sir. 


were 


304  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  At  no  time?— A.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  I  don’t  know  who  my 
bondsmen  were  if  I  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  H.  Luke,  foreman  of  the  grand  jury  ? — 
A.  I  don’t  know  him ;  I  was  not  acquainted  with  him. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  him  or  any  other  member  of  the  grand  jury 

order  you  into  custody? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  say  they  didn’t  do  it?— A.  It  would  be  foolish  for  me 

to  say  that. 

Q.  I  am  talking  about  the  foreman?— A.  I  didn’t  know  the 
foreman. 

Q.  You  saw  him  sitting  apart  from  the  other  members  of  the 
grand  jurors,  and  higher  up  than  the  others,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes; 
when  I  was  in  the  pen. 

Q.  How  long  a  time  did  you  serve  in  the  pen? — A.  In  the  pen  at 
the  criminal  court  before  the  grand  jury? 

Q.  Mr.  Link,  did  you  see  the  grand  jury? — A.  I  certainly  did. 

Q.  Did  you  see  a  man  whom  you  concluded  was  foreman  of  the 
grand  jury? — A.  The  foreman  didn't  ask  me  any  questions  to  my 
knowledge.  Mr.  Wayman  asked  me  questions. 

Q.  Mr.  Wayman  asked  you  to  tell  the  truth,  didn’t  he?  Did  he 
or  didn’t  he,  what  is  the  answer? — A.  That  was  about  Wilson  affair 
my  subpoena  here.  I  didn’t  care  about  that,  I  was  asked  to  tell  the 
truth  whether  I  had  met  Bob  Wilson. 

Q.  He  interrogated  you  about  the  $900  and  the  $1,000? — A.  That 
was  afterwards;  Mr.  Wayman  himself  asked  me  those  questions. 

Q.  He  asked  you  to  tell  the  truth  ?— A.  He  didn’t  ask  me  anything 
about  telling  the  truth,  I  admitted  that. 

Q.  When  he  talked  with  you;  when  Mr.  Wayman  first- asked  you 
whether  or  not  you  had  received  any  money  from  Browne,  you 
denied  it,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes;  of  course  I  did. 

Q.  When  he  asked  you  whether  you  had  received  any  money  fron 
Wilson,  you  denied  it?— A.  That  was  not  before  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  At  any  time  you  denied  it?— A.  To  be  sure  I  did. 

Q.  Why,  to  be  sure  you  did,  what  was  in  your  mind  that  madt 
you  deny  it? — A.  Because  I  didn’t  want  to  get  any  third-degret 
methods  up  here. 

Q.  You  thought  that  might  involve  you  in  the  third-degre( 
methods? — A.  No,  sir;  I  didn’t  know  anything  about  that? 

Q.  When  you  went  before  the  grand  jury  subsequently  you  tok 
them  you  got  $1,000  from  Browne? — A.  1  answered  two  questions. 

Q.  Will  you  please  answer  my  question? — A.  I  answered  tw( 
questions;  one  was  that  I  got  $1,000  from  Browne,  and  the  other  wa: 
that  I  got  $900  from  Wilson. 

Q.  In  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  denied  it  up  to  that  time.  Did  you  protest  and  objec 
when  the  officer  went  with  you  to  your  home? — A.  I  didn’t  havi 
knowledge  of  the  law  enough ;  no,  I  did  not.  I  got  tired  of  it  might? 

quick.  I 

Q.  As  soon  as  you  got  tired  you  wrote  Wayman  a  letter?  Is  tha 

correct? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  wrote  him  that  letter  the  officer  was  withdrawn  ?- 
A.  He  was  shortly  afterwards — right  afterwards — after  what  1  cal 
reading  the  riot  act. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  305 

Q.  You  testified  that  you  were  a  member  of  the  legislative  as¬ 
sembly  of  the  forty-fifth  or  the  forty-sixth?  The  forty-sixth  is  the 
last  one? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  forty-fifth  was  prior  to  that? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  at  any  time  receive  any  money  after  the  adjournment 
of  the  forty-fifth  legislature? — A.  No",  sir. 

Q.  Any  money  come  to  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  From  any  source? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Subsequent  to  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  These  two  funds  which  you  speak  of,  one  of  $1,000  on  one 
occasion  and  $900  upon  another  occasion,  is  all  the  money  you  ever 
received  in  connection  with  legislative  matters? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Outside  of  your  salary? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  (By  Judge  Hanecy.)  The  forty-fifth  session  of  the  general  as¬ 
sembly  was  the  first  one  you  were  a  member  of,  was  it  not? — A.  The 
first  one  I  was  a  member  of ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  are  many  things  that  new  members  in  the  assembly  do 
not  get  onto  the  first  session.  They  are  not  let  in  on  a  good  many 
things  the  first  or  second  session  that  they  might  be  let  in  on  later, 
isn't  that  right? — A.  I  don’t  know  about  that. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  about  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Frazier.  If  it  were  true  that  you  met  Wilson  at  St.  Louis 
and  he  paid  you  $900,  and  that  you  met  Browne  and  he  paid  you 
$1,000,  why  didn’t  you  tell  that  when  you  came  up  here  before  the 
sgand  jury  and  before  Mr.  Wayman?  What  were  you  concealing  it 
for? — A.  I  didn’t  want  to  get  myself,  perhaps,  in  trouble  and  my 
friends  in  trouble.  I  didn’t  know  where  the  money  came  from.  That 
was  the  only  reason. 

Q.  Why  didn’t  you  tell  it  if  it  were  a  fact  that  you  got  it,  and  that 
pou  met  those  gentlemen?  What  were  you  trying  to  conceal  it  for; 
what  was  there  wrong  about  the  transaction? — A.  I  didn’t  know  any- 
:hing  about  what  there  was  about  it.  And  I  didn’t  desire  to  crimi¬ 
nate  myself  for  taking  this  money.  I  didn’t  know  where  it  came 
Prom. 

Q.  If  it  were  a  present  to  you,  and  a  fair  and  honest  transaction 
for  campaign  purposes,  or  a  gift  or  otherwise,  why  wrere  you  trying 
to  conceal  it  ? — A.  I  had  no  reason  at  all  for  concealing  it. 

Q.  Why  didn’t  you  tell  it  ? — A.  Pardon  me,  I  will  correct  that.  I 
was  afraid  of  getting  somebody  into  trouble;  I  didn’t  know  where  this 
noney  came  from. 

Q.  Who  were  you  afraid  of  getting  into  trouble? — A.  Friends  of 

nine  or  mvself. 

«/ 

Q.  Who  were  your  friends? — A.  I  had  a  great  many  friends  on  the 
Republican  side  and  on  the  Democratic  side  in  the  general  assembly. 

Q.  How  would  you  get  your  friends  into  trouble  by  telling  the 
ruth,  if  this  were  a  perfectly  honest  and  legitimate  transaction? — A. 

T  didn’t  know  how  it  would  get  them  into  trouble,  only  it  struck  me 
T  might  get  them  into  trouble. 

Q.  You  didn’t  care  to  admit  that  some  one  had  given  you  $1,000 
without  any  explanation  about  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  having  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Browne, 
the  minority  leader,  with  respect  to  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United 
States  Senator  except  on  the  one  occasion  that  you  have  detailed? — - 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 20 


30G  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

A.  No,  sir.  He  complimented  me  on  being  a  Democrat;  he  said  we 
could  not  elect  a  Democrat.  I  told  him  that  I  had  beaten  him,  that  I 
had  already  promised  Senator  Lorimer  my  vote. 

Q.  The  fact  that  you  were  a  Democrat  and  had  voted  for  a  Re¬ 
publican? — A.  On  that  occasion. 

Q.  You  were  particularly  proud  of  that? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  beat 
Browne  to  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  anyone  else  before  the 
26th  day  of  May  with  reference  to  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Not 
any  conversation  that  I  remember  of.  Of  course,  the  members,  per¬ 
haps  two  or  three  days  before  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected,  might  have 
been  talking,  but  didn’t  talk  directly  to  me.  Perhaps  I  overheard 
them. 

Q,  Had  you  ever  told  anyone  else  but  Browne  that  you  were  going 
to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer? — A.  I  don’t  remember  whether  I  had  or 
not;  I  don’t  remember  that. 

Q.  W  as  there  anything  said  by  Mr.  Browne  that  there  would  be 
something  coming  to  you  or  that  it  would  be  to  your  advantage  to 
vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  No,  sir;  for  I  caught  him  off  as  quick  as 
he  mentioned  the  word  “  Lorimer.”  I  had  beaten  him  to  it. 

Q.  You  cut  him  off  before  he  could  say  anything? — A.  Well,  why 
shouldn’t  I,  when  I  had  promised  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer. 

Q.  When  you  met  Browne  in  St.  Louis,  it  was  after  the  adjourn¬ 
ment  of  the  legislature? — A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  That  was  in  response  to  a  letter  or  some  communication  from 
Browne  asking  you  to  meet  him  there  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  met  him  in  the  Southern  Hotel,  in  his  room? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  by  you  or  Browne  at  the  time  he  gave 
you  this  money  as  to  why  he  was  giving  you  this  $1,000? — A.  No,  sir; 
I  just  supposed  it  was  campaign  money,  but  where  it  came  from,  I 
didn’t  ask  him. 

Q.  You  supposed  it  was  what? — A.  For  campaign  purposes  or 
something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  What  sort  of  campaign  purposes? — A.  Down  in  Madison 
County,  it  costs  a  good  deal  to  be  elected  there. 

Q.  Had  Browne  ever  contributed  to  your  campaign  when  you  were 
a  real  candidate? — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Had  anybody  else  ever  contributed  to  your  campaign  when  you 
were  a  candidate? — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  You  were  not  a  candidate  at  that  time? — A.  I  certainly  was. 

,  Q.  You  were  a  candidate  for  the  next  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  asked  Browne  for  any  money  for  your  cam¬ 
paign? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  hadn’t  suggested  to  him  that  you  needed  any  money  for 
your  campaign? — A.  No,  sir;  I  might  have  told  him — I  did  have  sev¬ 
eral  talks  with  him — that  I  was  going  to  have  a  terrible  hard  pull  to 
get  back. 

Q.  Did  you  suggest  to  him  that  you  were  glad  to  get  that  money 
and  you  would  use  it  in  your  campaign? — A.  I  didn’t  say  anything 
about  what  I  would  do  with  the  mone}^. 

Q.  You  didn’t  say  a  word  about  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  As  to  where  it  came  from  or  anything  about  it? — A.  No,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  307 

Q.  lou  didn’t  ask  him  why  he  gave  it  to  you? — A.  No  sir*  T 
didn’t  ask  any  questions. 

Q.  He  simply  gave  you  $1,000,  and  you  counted  it  and  saw  it  was 
$1,000,  and  put  it  m  your  pocket  and  went  away?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  made  no  explanations  to  you  and  you  asked  no  questions? _ 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  kept  it  and  used  it  for  your  own  benefit? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  met  Wilson  in  St.  Louis,  was  that  in  response  to  a 
letter  ?— A.  Some  kind  of  a  communication. 

Q.  Did  Wilson  say  anything  to  you  about  Browne  being  sick,  the 
reason  he  was  there? — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  that? — A.  No,  sir. & 

Q.  Now,  when  he  gave  you  the  $900,  did  he  tell  you  why  he  was 

giving  you  the  $900?— A.  No,  sir;  and  I  didn’t  know  where  it  came 
from. 

Q.  You  didn’t  ask  any  questions? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  it  rather  strike  you  as  an  extraordinary  sort  of  thing 
that  a  gentleman  would  give  you  $1,000  with  no  explanation,  and  the 
ither  $900  with  no  sort  of  an  explanation  ?— A.  I  didn’t  know  what 
source  or  what  business  contributed  a  nickel  of  that  money  at  all 
lever  was  in  any  consultation  to  know  where  he  got  this  much  or 
hat,  and  how  would  I  know  about  it. 

Q.  Were  you  surprised  when  you  took  the  $900?— A.  Not  very 
nuch.  J 

Q.  Why  weren’t  you  surprised? — A.  I  was  glad  to  get  it. 

Q.  Did  anyone  in  your  life  ever  give  you  $1,000  without  asking 
mu  any  questions  or  making  any  explanation ?— A.  No;  I  don’t  know 
is  they  did. 

Q.  Why  was  not  this  an  extraordinary  sort  of  thing,  then? _ A.  If 

le  saw  fit  to  give  me  a  present  for  campaign  purposes,  I  was  glad  to 
eceive  it  and  ask  no  questions. 

Q.  You  were  not  surprised  that  he  did?— A.  None  whatever,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  never  had  anybody  give  you  $1,000  before  in  your  life 
r  $900  ?— A.  Not  directly.  J  ’ 

Q.  A\  e  want  to  get  at  the  whole  transaction,  Mr.  Link,  and  we  are 
rying  to  get  at  the  truth  about  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  we  would  like  to  know  if  at  any  time  there  was  any  reason 
r  any  cause  why  these  men  should  have  given  you  $1,000  and  $900. 
)id  they  owe  you  anything,  or  have  any  transaction  between  you  or 
usiness,  or  anything?— A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Did  any  other  member  of  the  legislature  ever  give  you  $1  000 
r  $900?— A.  No,  sir.  J  ’ 

Q*  any  0fher  man  in  your  history  as  a  politician  or  statesman 
i  this  State,  did  anybody  else  ever  give  you  $1,000  or  $900? — A  No 

r.  ’ 

Q.  Just ^on  these  two  occasions.  You  didn’t  ask  any  questions? _ 

l*  I  didn’t  ask  any  questions,  and  there  were  no  answers  o-iven  to 
ie  or  no  reasons  given  to  me. 

Q.  Had  you  had  any  information  directly  or  indirectly  as  to  anv 
athering  up  of  funds  to  be  distributed  among  legislators  for  votes  2— 

.  No,  sir;  no  direct  information. 

Q.  Had  you  had  any  indirect  information? — A.  It  was  rumored 
iose  things;  I  don’t  know  whether  they  did  or  not. 


308  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  You  had  heard  rumors  of  that  sort? — A.  Yes,  sir;  but  nothing 
accurately  or  definitely. 

Senator  Gamble.  By  what  name  did  they  call  it? — A.  The  news¬ 
papers  called  it  a  “  jack-pot;  ”  that  is  not  my  name. 

Senator  Frazier.  Did  Browne,  when  he  handed  you  the  $1,000, 
say  anything  about  your  voting  for  Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir;  he  did  not. 

Q.  Just  tell  us  exactly  what  he  said,  if  he  said  anything?— A.  We 
talked  casually  about - 

Q.  (Interrupting)  Tell  us  exactly  what  he  said. — A.  I  don't  re¬ 
member  :  he  was  going  back  to  the  next  legislature,  and  so  was  I  if 
I  could,  that  was  the  conversation  so  far  as  I  could  remember. 

Q.  When  you  first  went  into  his  room  Avas  there  anyone  in  there?— 
A.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  I  think  he  Avas  by  himself. 

Q.  When  he  handed  you  the  package,  was  it  in  an  em^elope  or 
wrapped  up  in  some  form? — A.  I  think  it  was  just  in  separate  bills. 

Q.  lie  just  handed  you  out  the  money  ? — A.  J  es,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  count  it  or  did  you  count  it? — A.  I  counted  it. 

Q.  He  handed  you  a  package  of  bills  and  you  counted  it  ? — A.  Yes, 

sir. 

Q.  When  he  handed  you  the  thousand-dollar  package  of  bills,  did 
he  say  anything  to  you? — A.  He  said,  “This  is  coming  to  you.” 
Nothing  else  was  said  as  to  the  purpose. 

Q.  He  just  said,  “  This  is  coming  to  you  ?  ” — A.  Something  of  that 
nature;  I  don’t  remember  exactly;  of  course  he  Avas  not  dumb  when 
he  handed  it  to  me. 

Q.  That  is  what  Ave  want  to  find  out?— A.  I  don’t  remember  the 
exact  conversation,  only  he  said,  “  This  is  a  present,”  or  “  This  is 
coming  to  you.” 

Q.  Which  did  he  say,  “  This  is  coming  to  you  ”  or  “  This  is  a 
present  ?  ” — A.  I  don’t  remember ;  it  was  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  You  can’t  recall  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  reply?— A.  I  says,  “All  right,  Lee;  ”  that  is  all 
that  AA’as  said  in  relation  to  it. 

Q.  You  counted  the  $1.000?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  say  it  was  $1,000,  or  did  he  just  hand  you  the  package, 
and  say  it  Avas  coming  to  you? — A.  I  don't  remember  Avhether  he  used 
the  word  “  thousand  or  hot.  Not  much  was  said  in  the  conversation 
at  all. 

Q.  Hoav  long  did  you  remain  in  his  room? — A.  Just  a  few  mo¬ 
ments. 

Q.  Did  anyone  else  come  in  while  you  were  there? — A.  Not  to  my 
knowledge. 

Q.  When  you  met  Wilson,  and  he  gaA^e  you  $1,000  or  $900,  will 
you  just  state  what  he  said  when  he  handed  you  the  $900? — A.  Some¬ 
thing  similar  to  what  Browne  said,  “This  is  coming  to  you,”  or 
“  This  is  for  you,  Mike.”  “  This  is  for  you.” 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  what  it  was  given  to  you  for? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anyone  else  in  his  room  during  that  time?— A.  At 
that  specific  time  I  don’t  recollect,  but  I  mentioned  the  different 
gentlemen  that  I  saw  there. 

Q.  Was  there  anyone  else  in  there  at  the  time  he  gaAre  you  the 
package  of  money?— A.  I  don’t  remember  whether  there  was  or  not; 
I  don’t  think  tlieie  was,  though. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  309 


Q.  But  did  you  see  other  gentlemen  come  in  during  the - A. 

(Interrupting.)  No  conversation  was  had,  I  was  with  Mr.  Wilson 
quite  a  little  while  that  day. 

Q.  Did  you  see  these  gentlemen — members  of  the  legislature — Mr. 
Luke - A.  Yes,  sir ;  during  the  time. 

Q.  Shepard  and  Clark? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  Mr.  White.  Those  were  all  members  of  the  legislature? — - 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  were  in  his  room  during  your  visit? — A.  During  the 
time  of  my  call  there  some  time,  but  I  can’t  say  just  exactly - - 

Q.  They  were  all  members  of  the  legislature  who  had  voted  for  Mr. 
Lorimer.  were  they  not  ?— A.  I  think  every  one  of  them  had  voted 
for  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  other  members  of  the  legislature  there  that 
day? — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  no,  I  did  not;  I  am  quite  certain. 

Q.  You  saw  Shepard,  Clark,  Luke,  and  White? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  Wilson’s  room? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  don’t  recollect  any  others? — A.  Not  now;  no,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  When  you  got  the  $1,000,  you  say  you  didn’t 
know  what  it  was  for;  did  you  count  it? — A.  I  don’t  remember 
whether  I  counted  it  there  at  that  time.  I  did  afterwards. 

Q.  Why  did  you  count  it? — A.  To  know  whether  there  was  a— 
how  much  money  there  was  in  the  package. 

Q.  That  was  all? — A.  Certainly;  I  wanted  to  know  how  much  the 
present  was  worth.  I  wanted  to  know  just  what  it  was  worth. 

Q.  You  had  no  other  purpose  in  counting  it? — A.  No,  sir;  none 
whatever. 

Senator  Heybltrn.  Did  you  go  to  his  room  for  any  other  purpose 
than  to  receive  this  money? — A.  I  didn’t  know  I  was  to  receive  the 
money  at  the  time  I  went  there.  I  didn’t  know  at  the  time  what  the 
call  was  for. 

Q.  Did  you  know  you  were  going  to  receive  any  money? — A.  No, 
sir;  I  did  not. 

Senator  Paynter.  At  the  time  Browne  handed  you  this  money, 
was  the^name  of  Mr.  Lorimer  used  in  the  conversation? — A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  late  senatorial  election  mentioned? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  your  vote  on  that  subject  mentioned? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  have  run  past  the  hour  of  recess.  We  will 
now  adjourn  until  a  quarter  after  2. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Friday,  September  30 ,  10  10. 

Committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and  the  following  pro¬ 
ceedings  were  had : 

Senator  Burrows.  If  it  will  not  discommode  the  attorneys,  the 
committee  will  meet  each  day  at  10  o’clock  and  continue  in  session 
until  1,  and  then  take  a  recess  of  one  hour;  reconvene  at  2,  and  adjourn 
for  the  day  at  5.  That  will  make  six  hours  a  day,  and  that  is  about 
all  the  committee  can  endure.  Is  that  agreeable  to  the  attorneys? 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  agreeable  to  me. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  anything  further  needed  of  this  wit¬ 
ness,  Mr.  Link,  to-day? 


310  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Judge  ITan ec y.  I  do  not  desire  anything  further  of  him,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

Michael  S.  Link  resumed  the  stand  and  testified  further  as  follows: 

Mr.  Link.  Will  the  committee  permit  me  to  understand  two  ques¬ 
tions  that  I  answered  a  little  better  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

The  Witness.  With  your  permission,  please. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes.  Do  you  wish  to  explain  anything  in 
your  testimony? 

The  Witness.  One  is  in  relation  to  the  carriage  ride  that  I  had  in 
Springfield.  I  do  not  quite  remember  what  the  record  shows  in  re¬ 
lation  to  that,  before  I  called  on  Senator  Lorimer. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  will  have  the  stenographer  read  it  to  you. 
I  will  send  for  the  stenographer  who  took  it. 

Senator  Gamble.  If  he  can  correct  it  without  referring  to  the 
record,  why,  let  him  go  ahead. 

The  Witness.  My  understanding  is  that  the  question  was  asked 
me  by  either  of  these  gentlemen  if  I  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer. 
I  do  "not  remember  what  my  answer  was  in  relation  to  that,  what  is 
on  record,  but  one  of  those  gentlemen  asked  me  a  question - 

Senator  Burrows.  Wait  a  moment.  I  want  to  have  read  what  you 
stated  before,  and  then  you  can  have  any  correction  made  you  desire. 

The  Witness.  All  right. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  record  will  show  what  he  said,  and  then 
the  witness  can  make  any  correction  he  desires. 

(The  testimony  of  the  witness  last  referred  to  was  read  by  the 
official  stenographer.) 

The  Witness.  Gentlemen,  I  desire  to  let  it  be  known  that  they 
asked  me  what  I  thought  of  Mr.  Lorimer  on  this  carriage  ride,  and 
we  did  not  say  one  word  about  his  election.  I  said  I  regarded  Mr. 
Lorimer  as  a  man  and  a  statesman  very  highly,  and  the  question  was 
asked,  “  Would  you  like  to  call  on  Mr.  Lorimer?  ”  I  said  that  I  had 
no  objections  at  all  if  Mr.  Lorimer  desires  to  meet  me.  That  is  what 
I  want  corrected.  Furthermore,  I  wish  to  state  why  I  delivered  a 
statement  here  in  Chicago,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  do  it.  Can  I  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  go  on. 

The  Witness.  The  question  of  Mr.  Austrian  about  my  delivering 
a  statement  here  in  Chicago — I  wish  to  say  that  I  delivered  this 
statement  here  in  Chicago,  this  sworn  statement,  to  be  able  to  con¬ 
tradict  some  of  the  infernal  falsehoods  that  the  Chicago  Tribune  has 
been  printing  about  me,  and  casting  broadcast  over  the  State  of  Illi¬ 
nois.  That  is  why  I  delivered  the  statement,  and  that  question  was 
not  asked  me  and  I  desire  to  place  it  on  record  now. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all  of  the  corrections? — A.  Yes. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  You  have  no  feeling  against  anyone  connected  with  this  con¬ 
troversy,  have  you? — A.  Not  particularly.  I  don’t  harbor  those 
thoughts.  I  am  not  a  very  envious  individual. 

Q.  You  did  not,  immediately  after  this  publication  of  April  30 
and  after  your  appearing  before  the  grand  jury  of  Cook  County—- 
did  you  send  the  Chicago  Inter-Ocean  the  statement  or  letter  detail- 


investigation  of  charges  against  william  lorimer.  311 

ing  the  conversation  that  you  had  with  Nodlier  or  Magee,  if  I  have 
the  names  correctly? — A.  No,  sir.  I  will  answer  that  correctly  and 
truthfully. 

Q.  Certainly. — A.  I  communicated  with  the  Chicago  Tribune  that 
I  was  ready  to  make  a  sworn  statement  of  why  I  voted  for  Mr. 
Lorimer,  but  I  changed  my  ideas  about  it  afterwards,  and  I  didn’t 
make  that  statement.  You  asked  me  if  I  wrote  it  and  why  I  wrote  it. 
I  wrote  it  after  I  got  through  with  that  entanglement  of  the  third 
degree  here  in  Chicago,  after  I  knew  myself,  I  wrote  that  statement 
and  have  never  changed  my  mind. 

Q.  After  sending  the  statement  to  the  Inter-Ocean? — A.  I  didn’t 
send  that  statement  to  the  Inter-Ocean. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  said  to  Charlie  Ward. 

By  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  You  never  gave  that  statement  to  the  Chicago  Inter-Ocean,  or 
one  of  the  reporters  for  the  Inter-Ocean  that  was  published  in  the 
Inter-Ocean,  did  you? — A.  Well,  they  took - 

Q.  Answer  that  question  yes  or  no? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  make  a  statement  to  the  Inter-Ocean,  a  representa¬ 
tive  of  the  Inter-Ocean,  either  oral  or  in  writing,  that  you  had 
promised  Nodlier  and  Magee  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  The  third-degree  method,  that  you  have  referred  to,  was  the 
methods  that  were  adopted  to  make  you  tell  the  truth,  is  that  cor¬ 
rect? — A.  You  had  that  subject  before. 

Q.  Well,  answer  it. — A.  I  do  not  know  what  that  kind  of  third- 
degree  method  means. 

Q.  But  you  have  referred  to  it  so  frequently  that  I  desire  to  direct 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  before  you  were  taken  into  custody, 
and  outlined  the  question  as  you  have  outlined  it,  you  had  not  stated 
the  truth.  Is  that  correct? — A.  My  answer  is  on  record. 

Q.  Answer  that  question.  Read  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  Not  all  through  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  “  Not  all  through  I  did  not,”  he  said. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  You  can  be  excused,  but  do  not 
leave  the  city,  because  we  may  want  to  call  you  again. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  have  no  further  occasion  to  use  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  might. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  have  Mr.  Meyers  called? 

Senator  Burrows.  George  W.  Meyers. 

George  W.  Meyers,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first 
duly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian  and 
testified  as  follows: 

Q.  Mr.  Meyers,  will  you  kindly  tell  the  committee  your  full  name, 
age,  residence,  and  occupation? — A.  George  W.  Meyers. 

Q.  You  will  have  to  speak  a  little  louder  and  direct  your  atten¬ 
tion  over  to  that  corner.  Your  age,  please? — A.  Forty-nine. 

Q.  Your  place  of  residence? — A.  Paris,  Ill. 

Q.  And  your  occupation? — A.  I  am  in  the  banking  business. 


312  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  the  banking  business? — A. 
The  last  time  about  two  and  one-half  years. 

Q.  Prior  to  that,  what  business  were  you  engaged  in? — A.  Well, 
I  was  in  the  banking  business  and  county  treasurer  of  the  county  at 
the  same  time,  about  six  years  ago. 

Q.  When,  for  the  first  time,  were  you  elected  to  the  Illinois  legisla¬ 
ture? — A.  This  last  legislature  two  years  ago  this  fall. 

Q.  That  is  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Democrat. 

Q.  House  or  senate? — A.  House. 

Q.  Mr.  Meyers,  who  was  the  minority  leader  of  the  Democratic 
party  of  the  House? — A.  Lee  O’Neill  Browne. 

Q.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  Browne  minority  faction? — A. 
I  was. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  was  the  answer? — A.  I  was. 

Mr.  Austrian.  “  I  was.’’  Keep  up  your  voice,  please,  Mr.  Meyers, 
it  is  rather  hard  to  hear. 

Q.  Mr.  Meyers,  do  you  recall  the  election  on  the  26th  day  of  May, 
1909,  of  William  Lorfmer  to  the  United  States  Senate? — A.  Yes, sir. 

Q.  Prior  to  the  time  of  that  vote  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  when 
-the  joint  assembly  were  in  session,  did  you  have  any  conversation  with 
Lee  O'Xeill  Browne? — A.  I  had. 

Q.  WThere? — A.  In  the  house  there. 

Q.  While  the  two  houses  were  in  joint  session? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  before  the  taking  of  the  vote  for  United  States 
Senator? — A.  Fifteen  or  twenty  minutes,  I  do  not  know  just  how 
long;  just  a  short  time. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  committee  who  sent  for  you,  if  anyone? — A. 
Well,  there  was  a  page  came  to  me  and  said  Mr.  Browne  wanted 
to  see  me. 

Q.  Wh  ere  were  you  when  he  came  to  you  and  told  you  Mr.  Browne 
desired  to  see  you  ? — A.  I  was  at  my  desk. 

Q.  How  far  removed  from  Mr.  Browne’s  desk  was  your  desk? — A. 
My  desk  was  three  rows  back  of  Mr.  Browne’s. 

Q.  Pursuant,  or  in  response  to  that  message,  did  you  go  to  Mr. 
Browne's  desk? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  committee  what,  if  any,  conversation  you  then 
had  with  Mr.  Browne? — A.  I  went  down  to  his  desk  and  sat  down 
on  a  chair  right  beside  him,  and  he  says:  “  We  are  going  to  put  this 
over  to-day,  and  I  would  like  you  to  go  with  us.”  I  says:  “  Lee,  I 
•can't  do  it.” 

Q.  What  else? — A.  Then  he  says  that  there  are  some  good  state 
jobs  to  give  away  and  the  ready  necessary.  I  says:  u  I  can't  help  it; 
I  can't  go  with  you.” 

Q.  “  The  ready  necessary,”  that  is  correct,  is  it,  that  I  repeat? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Meyers,  did  anything  else  take  place  between  you  and  Mr. 
Browne  at  that  time?— A.  Well,  he  insisted  upon  me  to  see  the 
speaker,  that  is  all;  that  was  the  end  of  our  conversation  as  far  as 
that  was  concerned. 

Q.  Did  he  state  why  he  wanted  you  to  see  the  speaker? — A.  No, 
sir;  he  only  said  the  speaker  wanted  to  see  me,  and  for  me  to  go  and 
see  the  speaker. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  speaker? — A.  ^  es,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  313 

Q.  What  conversation  did  you  have  with  the  speaker? — A.  He  was 
standing  behind  his  desk  and  turned  around  and  we  shook  hands; 
[  think  we  shook  hands;  and  he  says:  “  We  are  going  to  c  put  this 
aver  ’  to-day.  I  would  appreciate  it  if  you  would  help  us  out,”  or 

go  with  us,”  something  to  that  effect. 

Q.  What  did  you  reply  ? — A.  I  told  him  I  could  not. 

Q.  Did  that  terminate  the  conversation  ? — A.  He  said :  “  I  should 
ippreciate  it  very  much  if  you  can  see  your  way  clear  to  go  with  us.” 
[  told  him  I  could  not  and  went  back  to  my  desk. 

Q.  After  Mr.  Browne  had  stated  to  you  what  you  have  detailed 
lere,  did  you  go  back  to  your  desk  after  visiting  the  speaker? — A. 
Tes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  a  vote  taken  then? — A.  There  was. 

Q.  Had  that  been  the  first  time  that  any  Democrats,  so  far  as  you 
mow,  on  that  ninety-sixth  ballot,  or  ninety-fifth  ballot,  I  think  it 
vas,  that  any  Democrats  had  voted  for  a  Republican  in  the  joint 
issembly  ? — A.  I  think  it  was ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Prior  to  that,  was  there  any  discussion  so  far  as  you  know,  or 
iny  discussion  with  you,  with  reference  to  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
)V  the  Democratic  side? — A.  No;  nobody  ever  said  anything  to  me 
ibout  it,  only  just  a  kind  of  rumor;  that  is  all. 

Q.  What  was  the  general — you  say  there  was  a  rumor? — A.  Yes, 
;ir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  committee  what  the  rumors  were  ? — A.  I  could 
lot  tell  vou  half  of  them  now. 

Q.  Well,  as  much  as  you  remember. — A.  Well,  it  was  believed  there 
hat  Mr.  Lorimer  would  be  elected. 

Q.  And  when  did  that  start — that  rumor  start? — A.  Well,  I  think 
he  day  before,  maybe. 

Q.  On  the  25th  ? — A.  Something  like  that. 

Q.  Or  24th,  which? — A.  Somewhere  along  there;  I  don’t  just 
emember. 

Q.  Prior  to  the  24th  or  25th  of  May,  1909,  were  there  any  rumors 
iround  there  about  Mr.  Lorimer  being  elected? — A.  Well,  not  that 
’  remember  of. 

Q.  Were  any  means  or  methods  of  the  election  discussed  there 
ironnd  the  house? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  object  to  that,  if  the  chairman  and  the  com- 
nittee  please.  The  other  day  when  White  was  on  the  stand  they  at- 
empted  to  show  what  somebody  else  told  him.  I  do  not  know  what 
he  purpose  of  this  is,  what  this  may  be  leading  to,  but  this  witness 
an  not  detail  what  he  heard  somebody  else  say  on  the  third,  fourth, 
ifth,  or  one  hundredth  degree  removed  rumors.  I  submit  it  is  not 
ompetent  to  be  admitted  here  to  encumber  this  record. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  will  you  confine  your  questions 
o  the  knowledge  of  this  witness? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Hanecy: 

Q.  Mr.  Meyers,  the  speaker  that  you  referred  to  was  a  Republi¬ 
can? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  him  for  speaker? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  many  of  the  Democrats  vote  for  that  Republican  for 
peaker? — A.  All  but  one. 


314  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORI M EE. 

Q.  All  of  the  Democrats  in  the  house  except  one  voted  for  that 
speaker,  and  it  was  through  the  Democratic  vote,  and  a  few  Re¬ 
publicans,  that  he  was  elected,  wasn’t  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  speaker  had  been  speaker  of  the  house  at  several  previous 
sessions,  had  he  not?— A.  I  don’t  know;  that  was  my  first  session; 
but  I  heard  he  was  speaker  twice. 

Q.  Twice  before  that? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  all  the  Democrats— he  had  treated  them  fairly,  and  every¬ 
body  fairly,  and  they  were  ready  to  vote  for  him? — A.  That  seemed 
to  be  the  understanding. 

Q.  It  was  known  that  a  Democrat  could  not  be  elected  speaker, 
wasn’t  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  also  known  at  the  time  you  had  this  talk,  that  you 
say  you  had  this  talk  with  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  to  every  Democrat  in 
the  house,  that  a  Democrat  could  not  be  elected  United  States  Sena¬ 
tor  ? — A.  It  was  not  supposed  they  could  be ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  known  to  you  and  every  known  member  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  part  of  the  house  that  a  Democrat — or  the  joint  session— that  a 
Democrat  could  not  be  elected  United  States  Senator? — A.  Not  un¬ 
less  they  went  to  them. 

Q.  Not  unless  the  Republicans  went  to  the  Democrats,  as  you  went 
to  them? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  was  a  considerable  Republican  majority  in  the  house?— 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  was  it,  about? — A.  I  don’t  just  recollect 

Senator  Burrows.  Does  not  the  record  show  that? — A.  I  think  64 
Democrats  in  the  house,  the  way  I  recollect  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Out  of  151. — A.  Yes. 

Q.  One  hundred  and  fifty-three? — A.  Yes;  153.^ 

Q.  And  all  the  others  were  Republicans? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  was  nothing  in  either  house  except  Republicans  and 

Democrats? — A.  That  is  all.  .  . 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  other  members  of  the  house  or  of  the  joint 
session,  before  Senator  Lorimer’s  name  was  mentioned  as  a  candi¬ 
date,  about  the  Democrats  voting  for  Speaker  Shurtleff? — A.  No, 
sir ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Was  it  discussed  there  that  he  would  be  a  candidate  or  would 
be  voted  for? — A.  Oh,  he  had  been  voted  for  all  along. 

Q.  Yes.  And  he  had  been  voted  for  for  United  States  Senator 
for  a  considerable  time  before  the  26th  of  May  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Practically  all  the  business  of  the  house  and  senate  had  been  dis¬ 
posed  of  before  the  26th  of  May,  hadn’t  it? — A.  A  great  deal  of  it: 

yes,  sir.  # 

Q,  And  the  26th  of  May  was  later  than  the  legislature  general!) 

sat,  wasn’t  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  everybody  in  both  house  and  senate  was  anxious  to  gel 
away  and  go  back  home  to  their  business  or  occupation,  weren'l 
they? — A.  They  seemed  to  be;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  understood  that  neither  Senator  Hopkins,  Mr.  Foss 
Mr.  Mason,  or  Mr.  Webster,  the  four  prominent  candidates  whosi 
names  were  submitted  to  the  direct  primaries,  could  be  elected  at  tha* 
session  ? — A.  It  seemed  that  way  at  the  time. 

Q.  Yes.  Isn’t  it  true  that  Governor  Deneen  was  discussed  as  a  can 
didate  for  United  States  Senator,  and  was  not  their  talk  that  hi 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  315 


name  would  he  presented  as  a  candidate? — A.  I  heard  such  talk 
around  the  lobby. 

Q.  And  there  was  talk  of  that  kind  among  the  Democrats,  wasn’t 
there? — A.  Everybody  talked  about  it. 

Q.  Yes.  And  Governor  Deneen  was  a  Republican? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  said  that  your  seat  was  three  seats  back  of  Mr.  Browne. 
Was  it  on  the  same  side  of  the  aisle  or  across  the  aisle? — A.  Across 
he  aisle. 

Q.  You  said  a  page  went  to  your  seat  and  asked  you  to  go  to  Mr. 
Browne’s  place.  Was  that  the  page  who  stood  during  all  that  session 
Df  the  joint  session  at  Mx.  Browne’s  desk? — A.  Now,  there  are  several 
pages  there.  I  could  not  tell  you  which  one  it  was. 

.  Q-  I  know  there  are  several,  and  that  is  the  reason  I  want  to  iden- 
;ify  this  one. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  says  he  can  not  tell  which  one  it  was. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  was  one  that  stood  at  Mr.  Browne’s  desk  all 
hat  day  or  all  that  session? — A.  No;  not  all  that  session;  there  are 
lilferent  boys  stood  there. 

Q.  You  testified  at  the  two  trials  of  People  v.  Browne  in  Cook 
Jounty,  didn’t  you  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  either  of  those  trials  did  you  ever  testify  that  Lee  O’Neill 
Irowne  asked  you  to  go  and  see  the  speaker? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  was  the  answer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  never  mentioned  that  fact  on  either  the  direct 
>r  cross  examination  of  either  of  those  trials?— A.  I  aimed  to  tell  at 
lie  last  trial,  but  they  would  not  let  me. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  do  it? — A.  They  would  not  let  me. 

Q.  You  did  not  do  it,  did  you?— A.  No;  I  did  not  do  it. 

Q.  You  did  not  do  it  on  the  first,  either,  did  you  ? — A.  No  sir. 

Q.  What  county  did  you  say  you  were  from?— A.  Edgar.  ’  " 

Q.  Isn  t  it  a  fact,  Mr.  Mhyers,  that  all  of  the  people  who  want — 
n  politics  or  others  matters,  where  they  want  to  meet  parties  in 
outhern  Illinois  or  south  central  Illinois,  meet  in  St,  Louis,  isn’t  that 
he  most  convenient  place;  isn  t  that  the  most  common  place  of  meet- 
ng? — A.  Not  that  I  know  of;  no;  it  is  not. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  gone  there  to  meet  other  political  associates? — 
v.  I  have  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer,  did  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q*  n°body  asked  }7ou  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  except  Lee 
)Neil  Browne  and  what  you  say  the  speaker  asked  you? — A  Yes 

lr.  ’ 

Q.  There  wasn’t  any  doubt  but  what  Speaker  ShurtlefT  was  for 
Airimer  for  United  States  Senator  all  of  the  time? — A.  I  think  not. 
Q.  Was  it  talked  and  understood  there  that  William  Lorimer  did 
ot  want  to  be  United  States  Senator  and  would  not  allow  his  name 
>  be  used  prior  to  the  25th  or  2Gth  of  May  ?— A.  Well,  I  don’t  know 
bout  that. 

Q.  Well,  you  didn’t  hear  that  talk?— A.  Well,  there  was  all  kinds 

f  talk.  x 

Q.  Well,  didn’t  you  hear  that  talk?— A.  I  don’t  recollect  whether 
did  or  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  did  you  understand  that  Mr.  Browne  meant 
hen  he  said  “  plenty  of  the  ready  necessary?  ” 


316  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER, 


Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to,  what  his  understanding  was. 
Senator  Burrows.  Was  that  in  reference  to  the  appointment? 
Judge  Hanecy.  No;  Mr.  Chairman,  “ the  ready  necessary.  He  is 
asking  him  to  tell  this  honorable  committee  y  hat  the  witness  thought. 
It  is  an  operation  of  his  mind,  and  I  submit  it  is  not  proper. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Bead  the  question. 

(Question  read.)  . 

The  Witness.  I  supposed  he  meant  money ;  I  did  not  know  what 

else  • 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  knew  that  nobody  could  give  out  state  jobs 

except  Governor  Deneen,  didn’t  you?  A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  that  was  one  of  the  things  that  Lee  O'Neill  Browne 

said  to  you,  that  “  there  are  plenty  of  state  jobs?  "—A.  Yes. 

Q.  “And  ready  necessary  ?  ”  .  ,  ,  . 

Senator  Frazier.  Did  Mr.  Browne  make  any  explanation  of  whal 
he  meant,  “We  are  going  to  put  this  over  to-day?  ’’—A.  No,  sir. 
q  "What  did  vou  understand  him  to  mean  by  that,  his  election. 


A.  Yes,  sir. 


q  And  it  was  in  that  connection  that  he  stated  that  there  wen 
state  jobs  and  plenty  of  the  “  ready  necessary  ?  ”— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  declined  to  receive  either  a  state  job  or  •  plenty  of  th< 

ready  necessary?  — A.  ^  es.  sir. 

Q.  You  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  les,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Were  any  state  jobs  or  any  ready  necessary 
offered  to  you  by  anybody  ?— A.  Just  as  I  stated  it  right  here. 

O  Well  Senator  Frazier  asked  you  if  you  did  not  refuse  to  receivi 
any  of  the  state  jobs  or  any  of  the  “  ready  necessary  ”  and  voted  foi 
Senator  Lorimer.  Now,  I  want  to  know  did  anybody  ever  otier  yoi 

a  state  job?— A.  Only  as  Browne  stated  ....  , 

O  There  wasn’t  anything  said  in  the  form  of  a  job,  except  tha 
general  statement  there,  as  to  the  state  job  or  the  “  ready  neces 
sarv  ?  — A.  No,  sir. 

O  You  knew  at  the  time  or  had  known  that  Governor  Deneen  wa 

friendly  to  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer?— A.  No;  I  didn  t  kno\ 

anything  about  that.  .  n  . 

Q.  You  didn’t  know  that  at  all?  You  knew  nobody  could  give  ou 

state  jobs  but  the  governor?— A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all.  •  _  _  .  £  ,, 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  Will  you  need  this  witness  further 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir.  ,  c 

Senator  Burrows.  You  can  be  excused,  then.  Is  Mr.  Joseph  k 

Clark  present  ? 

Mr.  Nixon.  Mr.  Clark  is  not  m  the  room. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Is  Mr.  Garfield  here? 

Mr.  Nixon.  I  gave  vou  a  list  of  the  witnesses,  Mr.  Austrian. 
Senator  Burrow  s.  Who  did  you  say  was  here,  Mr.  Shephard  ? 
Mr.  Nixon.  Mr.  Shephard  is. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  Mr.  Shephard. 

Mr  Austrian.  If  I  am  to  examine  Mr.  Shephard  I  would  like  tl 

same  privilege  of  cross-examination. 

Henry  A.  Shephard,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  n 
duly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian,  an 
testified  as  follows: 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  317 


Q.  What  is  your  full  name? — A.  Henry  A.  Shephard. 

Q.  Will  you  talk  over  that  way,  I  will  catch  it.  What  is  your 
business,  Mr.  Shephard? — A.  I  am  in  the  banking  business,  cashier 
in  the  state  bank  of  Jerseyville,  Ill. 

Q.  You  were  a  member  of  the  Illinois  legislature,  were  you  not?— 
A.  I  was. 

Q.  The  forty-sixth  general  assembly? — A.  I  was,  sir. 

Q.  You  still  are  a  member  of  that  general  assembly? — A.  Yes 

dr. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  discussion  with  anyone,  prior  to  the 
dection  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  with  reference  to  his  election? — A.  Only 
mce — well,  I  may  say  twice. 

Senator  Burrows.  Can  you  speak  a  little  louder? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  When?— A.  The  first  time,  I  do  not  know  just 
iow  long  it  was  prior  to  the* election  of  Senator  Lorimer,  possibly 
i  week;  it  may  not  have  been  quite  so  long.  I  had  come  from  my 
lome,  went  in,  and  was  in  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  at  Springfield,  and 
Tr.  Browne  came  up  and  shook  hands  with  me,  and  he  made  this 
•emark:  “  There  is  going  to  be  something  doing  soon  in  the  election 
>f  the  United  States  Senator,”  and  I  said,  “  Whom  is  it  to  be?  ”  He 
aid,  “  Lorimer.”  He  said,  “  Could  you  vote  for  Lorimer?  ”  I  said, 
•No,  indeed,  I  could  not.”  I  said,  “  There  is  only  one  thing,  Lee! 
hat  can  induce  me  to  consider  it.”  I  said,  “  If  I  could  prevent  a 
ellow  who  is  a  candidate  for  the  post-office  in  my  town  from  securing 
hat  post-office  I  may  be  induced  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  ”  He  says, 

’  Oh,  that  can  not  enter  into  it.” 

Senator  Burrows.  He  said  what?— A.  “  That  can  not  enter  into  it.” 
said,  “  Well,  nothing  else  could  induce  me.”  That  is  all  that  was 
aid  at  that  time. 

By  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  You  fix  that  time  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  the  26th  of 
day,  is  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  All  right. — A.  It  was  some  days - 

Judge  Hanecy.  A  week  or  two  before  that  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  fixed  the  day  of  the  election. 

A.  It  may  have  been  all  of  a  week;  it  was  some  davs  before;  I  do 
i.o t  know  just  how  many  days,  but  it  was  several  days  before  the  elec- 
i°n  of  Mr.  Lorimer.  Now,  do  you  wish  the  next— _ 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  the  time.— A.  All  right.  The  next  time  I  talked 
nth  anybody  about - 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  you  state  all  the  conversation  ?— A.  That 
all  the  conversation;  that  is,  he  left  me  and  went  elsewhere, 
he  day  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected,  shortly  before  the  time  for  the 
onvening  session,  I  was  sitting  in  the  seat — I  do  not  know  whether 
t  is  proper;  if  it  is  not,  stop  me — Mr.  George  Alschuler,  a  member 
r  the  legislature,  who  sat  a  couple  of  seats  away  from  me.  had 
een  out  somewhere  and  came  in.  He  said,  “So  there  is  going  to 
e  something  doing  to-day,”  or  some  remark  similar  to  that,  and  he 
aid,  “Are  you  with  us?”  I  says,  “With  you  on  what?”  He  said. 
Are  you  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer?”  and  I  said,  “No;  not  me.” 
Ie  immediately  left.  Well,  I  was  sitting  in  my  seat  in  the  end  of 
he  row.  Presently  Mr.  Browne  came  to  me  again  and  he  called 
ie  to  the  back  of  the  assembly  room  near  the  door,  and  his  part  of 


318  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOR1MER. 

the  conversation  was  this:  He  said,  calling  me  by  my  first  name,  j 
Harry — of  course,  my  real  name  is  Henry — but  he  says,  44  Harry,  * 
aren’t  you  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer  to-day?  ”  and  I  said,  “No;  in¬ 
deed  I  am  not.”  44  My  soul !  ”  he  said,  “  are  you  going  to  throw  us  . 
down  that  way?  All  of  your  friends  are  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer.”  I 
I  said.  44  Lee,  I  never  threw  anybody  down  in  my  life.  I  never 
promised  you  I  would  vote  for  Lorimer,  did  I?”  He  said,  “No;j 
you  haven’t,  but  we  thought  you  were.”  I  says,  “  Well,  you  have 
been  reckoning  without  your  host.”  He  said,  44  You  recall  the  con¬ 
versation  we  had  in  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  wherein  you  spoke  to  me 
about  the  appointment  of  the  postmaster  of  Jerseyville  and  you 
said,  4  That  can’t  enter  into  it,’  ”  and  he  said,  44  Well,”  he  says,  44 1 
supposed  that  you  had  a  Republican  Congressman  in  your  district,  I 
and  if  you  had,  the  Congressman  would  have  the  appointment  of 
the  postmasters;  but  I  have  learned  now,”  he  says,  44 your  Congress¬ 
man  is  Mr.  Rainey,”  and  he  said  it  would  be  up  to  the  Senators  to 
make  this  appointment,  44  and  Mr.  Lorimer  will  make  you  the  prom¬ 
ise  you  want.” .  I  said,  44  Well,  Lee,  I  don’t  want  to  vote  for  him ;  I 
would  rather  not.  You  have  got  enough  without  me.”  He  said,  l 
44  We  have  not  got  enough  without  you.”  I  said,  44 1  believe  you 
have  enough ;  I  don’t  want  to  vote  for  him.  But  do  you  suppose  he 
would  make  me  that  promise?  ”  and  he  said,  44  He  will,  and  he  will 
keep  it.”  I  said,  44 1  will  go  back  and  see  if  he  will.”  I  did  not  go 
with  him ;  I  would  not  go  with  him.  I  went  back.  He  said  he  was 
there  in  the  speaker’s  room — Mr.  Lorimer  was  in  the  speaker’s 
room.  I  went  behind  the  speaker’s  chair  to  the  speaker’s  room. 
Mr.  Browne  was  in  the  hallway  that  runs  in  front  of  those  rooms 
and  Mr.  Lorimer  was  in  the  speaker’s  room.  Mr.  Browne  started 
to  introduce  me  to  Mr.  Lorimer,  but  Mr.  Lorimer  said,  44 1  knoAv  Mr. 
Sheppard.”  Mr.  Browne  withdrew,  and  I  said,  44  Mr.  Lorimer  ” — 
do  you  gentlemen  want  all  of  the  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed. 

A.  I  said,  44  Mr.  Lorimer,  I  have  been  asked  to  vote  for  you  for 
United  States  Senator.”  I  said,  44 1  am  a  rock-ribbed  Democrat  and 
have  always  have  been,  and  there  is  only  one  thing  in  this  world 
that  could  induce  me  to  vote  for  you  for  United  States  Senator,  and 
that  would  be  to  prevent  the  editor  in  Jerseyville,  who  has  maligned 
me  for  nine  or  ten  years  in  his  newspaper  and  who  is  now  a  candidate 
for  the  post-office,  to  prevent  him  from  obtaining  the  post-office.  He 
is  the  deputy,  now,”  I  told  him.  44  The  gentleman’s  name  is  Richards 
who  is  the  postmaster,”  and  I  included  them  both  in  it.  I  said,  44  If 
you  will  promise  me  that  neither  Mr.  Richards  nor  Mr.  Becker  shall 
be  made  the  postmaster,  I  will  vote  for  you.”  He  said.  44 1  will 
promise  you  to  do  all  in  my  power  to  prevent  them  from  being  ap¬ 
pointed.”  I  said,  “Will  it  be  up  to  you  in  making  the  appointment  ?  ’ 
He  said,  “I  shall  certainly  have  my  share  of  the  patronage  if  I  am 
elected  Senator,  and  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  I  can  fulfill  my 
promise  to  you!”  I  said,  44 1  will  vote  for  you.  Mr.  Lorimer,  for 
Senator.”  And  I  took  my  seat,  and  when  the  roll  was  called  I  voted 
for  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  You  relied  on  that  promise  did  you? — A.  I  did,  and  I  am 
relying  on  it  yet. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  consideration? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  319 

Q.  It  was  the  moving  cause  for  your  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer^ _ 

A.  Yes,  sir;  absolutely  the  only  cause. 

Q.  The  only  moving  cause? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  so-called  Browne  faction? — A.  I 
was. 

Q.  After  the  joint  assembly  adjourned  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909. 
lid  you  return  to  your  home  ? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  was  your  home? — A.  Jersey ville,  Ill. 

Q.  How  far  from  St.  Louis  ?— A.  It  is  about  43  or  44  miles. 

Q.  How  far  from  Ottawa?— A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  the  distance 
from  Ottawa. 

Q.  Mr.  Sheppard,  when  after  the  adjournment  of  the  joint  assem¬ 
bly  did  you  go  to  St.  Louis?— A.  Oh,  I  can’t  tell  you.  I  am  in  St. 
r^ouis  nearly  every  week. 

Q.  When  after  the  adjournment  of  the  joint  assembly  on  the  4th 
)r  5th  of  June  did  you  go  to  St.  Louis?— A.  I  can  not  tell  you  the 
sxact  date,  sir. 

Q.  When  after  the  joint  assembly,  at  St.  Louis  for  the  first  time 
lid  you  meet  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  in  St.  Louis? — A.  I  can’t  remember 
he  date.  I  met  Urn  there  some  day  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
oint  session. 

Q.  How  long  would  you  say  after?— A.  For  my  life,  I  can’t  tell 
rou  how  long. 

Q.  Where  was  it? — A.  Where  did  I  meet  him? 

Q.  ^  es. — A.  At  the  Southern  Hotel,  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  By  appointment?— A.  He  wrote  me  a  letter,  or  sent  me  a  tele¬ 
gram,  I  can  not  say  which. 

Q.  To  meet  him  in  St.  Louis?— A.  It  read  something  like  this. 

I  will  be  at  the  Southern  Hotel,  in  St.  Louis,”  naming  the  exact 
ate.  “  If  convenient,  will  be  glad  to  see  you.” 

Q.  You  destroyed  that  letter,  did  you?— A.  I  presume  I  have;  I 
on’t  know  where  it  is. 

Q.  ^  ou  have  searched  for  it  since,  have  you? — A.  I  have  not,  sir. 
Q.  When  you  first  went  into  the  hotel  in  St.  Louis,  the  Southern 
lotel.  where  did  }mu  meet  Mr.  Browne? — A.  I  first  went  to  the 
iouthern  Hotel  when  I  got  into  St.  Louis.  I  went  to  the  clerk,  and 
asked  him  what  was  the  number  of  Mr.  Browne’s  room.  The  clerk 
M  me  that  Mr.  Browne  had  not  arrived  yet,  but  that  they  had  re- 
eived  some  word  from  him— I  don’t  know  whether  they  said  letter 
r  not,  but  I  presume  it  was  a  telegram— word  from  him  that  his 
»m  was  delayed,  and  he  would  not  be  in  until  11  o’clock,  or  at  a 
iter  time  anyhow.  I  went  about  town  somewhere,  and  I  returned 
lere  about  the  time  they  indicated  to  me  that  Mr.  Browne  would 
3t,urn,  and  I  went  to  the  clerk  and  I  asked  him  if  Mr.  Browne  was 

i  his  room,  and  he  said  he  was.  He  called  a  bell  boy  and  took  me  to 
is  room. 

Q.  Did  you  look  at  the  register  while  you  were  standing  at  the 
esk  to  see  whether  Mr.  Browne  had  come? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Wasn’t  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  on  the  21st  day  of  June’  1909  ?— 

.  Well,  I  could  not  say  positively  that  it  was;  but,  from  what  has 
•curred,  I  would  suppose  that  it  was  that  date. 

Q.  On  the  21st  day  of  June?— A.  Yes;  but  T  could  not  say  for  sure 
iat  it  was. 

Q.  You  went  up  into  Mr.  Browne’s  room,  did  you?— A.  I  did,  sir. 


320  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  St.  Louis  again  in  response  to  any  message  from 

any  other  member  ? — -A.  I  did  not,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  in  St.  Louis  the  day  Air.  W  llson  was  tlieie .  A.  1 

TVT£IS« 

q  Where  did  you  meet  Mr.  Wilson? — A.  I  met  Mr.  Wilson  at  the  I 
Southern  Hotel. 

Q.  Where  ?— A.  I  think  it  was  in  the  lobby. 

Q.  Yes.  Will  you  give  us  the  date?— A.  About  that  date— 1  have 
nothing  to  fix  it  in  my  mind,  except  facts  which  have  transpired  since. 

Q  Would  you  sav  it  was  the  15th  day  of  July?— A.  I  could  not 
swear  positively  that  it  was,  but  in  the  light  of  what  happened  1  be¬ 
lieve  it  was  that  date.  T.  1  ,,  T  1  A 

Q,  Whom  did  you  meet  there  ? — A.  I  met  Mr.  Link,  Air.  Luke,  anc 

I  think  Mr.  Beckemever  ;  I  would  not  be  sure. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  White  ? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  What?— A.  White;  yes,  sir;  I  met  Mr.  White  there. 

Q.  And  Wilson ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Joe  Clark?— A.  Let’s  see  about  White,  whether— yes;  I  think  J 
met  W  hite,  and  I  met  Mr.  Clark. 

Q.  Now - A.  Yes,  sir.  ,  ,, 

Q.  Mr.  Shephard,  they  were  all  part  of  the  minority  taction  tilt 

Browne  faction? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  was  understood  and  recognized? — A.  res. 

Q.  And  were  you  surprised  to  see  any  of  those  gentlemen  there.— 

A.  Wrell _ 

Q.  Yes  or  no,  please.— A.  I  can’t  say  whether  I  was  or  not. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Mr.  Browne — did  you  get  any  letter  from  Mr 
Browne,  after  your  meeting  with  W  ilson  in  St.  Louis,  giving  am 

reason  why  he  was  not  there  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  Did  Wilson  tell  you  why  Browne  did  not  come?— A.  JNo,  sir. 

Q  Did  any  one  tell  you  why  Browne  had  not  come?  A.  no. 

Q.  Did  you  ascertain  that  Browne  was  suffering  with  ptomain 

poisoning  on  or  about  that  time? — A.  No,  sir.  .  . 

Q.  You  have  never  heard  of  it  since? — A.  Why,  I  heard  of  it  1. 

the  testimony,  sure.  .  ,  XT  . 

Q  Did  you  ask  WTilson  why  Browne  had  not  come? — A.  >o,  sn 

I  was  not  expected— I  was  not  expecting  to  see  Mr.  Browne  there,  0 

Mr.  AVilson  either.  TT  ^  is* 

Q  How  did  you  happen  to  go  to  the  Southern  Hotel  on  this  lot 

day  of  July?— A.  I  will  be  glad  to  tell  the  gentlemen. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  want.— A.  I  will  tell  you  the  very  reason  the 
took  me  to  St.  Louis  that  day.  I.  unfortunately,  owned  a  hit 
steamer  automobile,  and  the  day  before  I  noticed  that  the  steam  wa 
escaping  badly  in  it,  and  when  I  drove  into  my  garage  that  night, 
said  to  the  young  man  wdio  took  care  of  my  car,  I  said,  W  e  wi 
have  to  take  up  on  this  packing,  it  makes  a  noise  like  a  steamboat. 
He  said,  “  I  have  taken  up  all  I  can  on  it,  Air.  Shephard,^  and  1  sai( 
u  Put  in  more  packing,’  he  said,  u  I  haven  t  any  more. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  it. necessary  for  the  witness  to  go  into  tl 
conversation  between  himself  and  the  chauffeur? 

Air.  Austrian.  AAell,  you  went  to  get  the  AA  hite  steamer  fixed  .  ■ 

No ;  1  went  down  to  get  some  packing. 

Q.  Oh.— A.  I  said.  “  I  have  got  to  go  to  St.  Louis  some  time,  an 

I  will  go  to-morrow  and  get  some  packing  for  that  machine. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  321 

Q.  Did  you  get  the  packing?— A.  I  certainly  did,  sir;  I  certainly 
did,  sir;  and  it  was  very  necessary  for  that  machine  to  have  packing. 
[.Laughter.]  1 

Q.  Mr.  Shephard,  did  you  have  an  account  in  any  bank  in  St 
Dorns  on  the  15th  day  of  July,  1909?— A.  The  State  Bank  of  Jersey- 
ville  had  an  account  there.  J 

Q  Ao;  I  am  asking  you  if  you  had  one?— A.  I  don’t  know 
whether  I  did  that  day  or  not— at  that  time  or  not.  I  had  had  an 
account  in  the  St.  Louis— in  the  National  Bank  of  Commerce— the 
Mississippi  \  alley  Trust  Company. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  account  on  that  day  or  shortly  thereafter  ?— A. 
I  can  not  say  now  for  surely;  I  would  not  say  positively  whether  I 

Q.  You  are  a  cashier  in  a  bank?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  know  I  had  an 
account  there  at  times,  and  the  money  would  be  drawn  out.  and 

there  would  be  no  balance  left  there,  and  then  after  a  while  I  would 
have  another  balance. 

there  was  110  balance  there  you  closed  the  ac- 
count? — A.  Well - - 

Q*  Sir  ?  A.  The  account  would  close  itself,  I  guess 

Q.  Now  Mr.  Shephard,  did  you  have  a  safety  deposit  vault  any- 
w  nei  e  .  a.  i  es,  sir. 

Q.  Where  ?—A.  That  is,  my  brother  and  I  have  one  at  the  Mer¬ 
cantile  Trust  Company,  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Mr.  Shephard,  were  you  at  the  safety  box  or  the  safety  vault 

in  r  T> LomS  0n  e1lth®r  of  the  occasions  you  have  detailed  when  you 
met  Browne,  and  when  you  met  Wilson?— A.  I  was  at  the  safety 

deposit  vaults  the  day  I  met  Mr.  Wilson,  I  think  before  I  met  Mr 

Wilson. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  the  time  you  met  Mr.  Wilson?— A.  It  was 
along  about  11  o’clock,  I  think. 

Q.  In  the  morning? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Y  ou  met  him  at  the  same  time— were  you  there  at  the  same  time 
Beckemeyer,  White,  Link,  and  the  other  gentlemen  you  have  men¬ 
tioned  were  present  whom  you  have  mentioned  ? _ A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  that  was  on  or  about  11  o’clock?— A.  I  think  it  was 
ibout  11  o’clock. 

Q.  What  time  do  you  tell  this  committee  you  were  at  the  safety 
vault? — A.  It  was  that  day,  I  think  before  dinner.  I  would  not  be 
positive,  but  before  I  met  Mr.  Wilson. 

Q.  You  do  not  want  to  be  understood  that  this  is  a  positive  fixing 
>1  the  time?— A.  No,  sir;  I  would  not  be  so  understood.  I  went  up 
here  before  I  met  Mr.  Wilson.  If  you  will  let  me  explain  to  the 
senators  how  I  knew  that  Wilson  was  in  town  that  day,  I  would  like 
o  make  the  explanation. 

Q.  I  have  no  objection.  Make  it  brief. — A.  I  will  tell  you.  When 
^ arrived  in  the  city  I  went  to  see  a  haberdashery,  F.  A.  Steer  Fancy 
mods  Company.  From  there  I  went  to  the  Planters’  Hotel,  down  to 
he  closet.  As  I  came  up  out  of  there,  out  the  front  of  the  hotel  that 
ronts  out  on  Fourth  street,  I  started  north  on  Fourth  street  and  I 
net  Kepresentative  Luke,  and  he  came  up  and  shook  hands  with  me 
nd  asked  me  where  I  was  going,  and  I  told  him  I  was  goinp;  Up  on 
xicust  street,  to  this  safety  deposit  in  the  Mercantile  Trust  Corn- 

709240— s.  Rep.  942,  01-3 - 21 


322  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


ljanv  and  to  a  tailor,  and  he  said,  “  Do  you  know  Bob  Wilson  is  in 
town’*  ”  I  said,  “  No;  I  didn’t.’'  He  said,  “  Well,  he  is  in  town,  at 
the  Southern  Hotel,  and  I  am  on  my  way  down  to  see  him.  Come  on 
down  with  me.”  I  looked  at  my  watch,  and  I  said  l  ean  t  go  now, 

I  have  an  appointment.”  I  said,  “  Will  he  be  in  the  city-how^ long 
will  he  be  in  the  city?”  He  said,  Noon,  I  think.  I  said,  I 

oet  through  I  will  go  down  and  see  him,  and  if  I  don  t  see  him  von 
fay  ‘  hello  ’  to  him  for  me.”  We  separated  then.  After  that  I  went  1 
up  to  my  tailor’s  on  Locust  street,  Mr.  Holloway,  and  I  either  tried 
on  a  suit  or  I  ordered  a  suit.  I  have  forgotten  which  it  was.  1  rom 
there  1  went  to  the  Southern  Hotel.  If  I  did  not  go  into  the  safety  i 
deposit  vault  then,  why  I  did  afterwards  to  clip  some  coupons  oil  ot 

some  bonds  we  had  in  there.  ^  ,  9 

O  Mr  Shephard,  what  time  did  you  leave  St.  Louis  that  night . 

A  T  left  St.  Louis  about  5-1  think  the  train  left  about  5  26 

Q  What  time  did  Wilson  leave  ?— A.  I  don’t  know.  I  did  not  see 
Wilson  at  all  after  I  left  him.  I  left  him  about 


Q.  About  12  o’clock?— A.  A  little  before  noon. 

Q.  Mr.  Shephard,  did  Wilson  ask  you  to  change  a  $500  bill  that 

day? — A.  He  did  not.  .  r , 

Q.  Did  he  exhibit  a  $500  bill  to  you  that  day?— A.  No,  sir;  he  did 


not,  sir. 


6.  Nor  any  other  sum  of  money  ? — A.  No,  sir.  . 

O.  In  the  room  that  Wilson  occupied  that  day  m  the  Southern 
Hotel  when  you  got  in  there,  were  all  of  these  gentlemen  whose  names 
you  have  mentioned  in  the  room  or  some  of  them?-A.  My  recollec¬ 
tion  is,  I  think  I  met  some  of  those  gentlemen  m  the  lobby  of  the 
Southern  Hotel  and  we  went  up  to  that  room,  at  the  invitation  ot 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Wilson  give  any  of  them  any  money  A.  I 
did  not,  sir. 

O.  Nor  any  packages?—  A.  I  did  not,  sir.  .  0  .  T 

O  Were  you  there  some  considerable  length  of  time?— A.  I  vas 
there  possibly  a  half  hour;  it  might  be  a  little  more  or  a  little  less. 
q  Did  you  see  any  of  them  hold  private  conversations  with  Mr. 

AVilson? — A.  Not  that  I  can  recall,  sir.  9 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Wilson  take  any  of  them  into  the  bathroom  ?- 

\  No  sir:  I  don’t  remember  that  I  did. 

Q.  Did  he  take  you  into  the  bathroom  ?— A.  He  called  me  mtc 


the  bathroom ;  yes,  sir. 


Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q,  You  were  subpoenaed  before  the  grand  jury  here,  weren  t  you  .— 
A.  I  was. 

Q.  In  Cook  County?— A.  I  was. 

Q.  By  Air.  Wayman? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  there? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  testify  ? — A.  I  did.  at 

Q.  AYere  you  put  in  charge  of  an  officer?— A.  I  was.  . 

().  When? — A.  I  was  called— I  went  before  the  grand  pi ry  oi 
Wednesday ;  I  think  it  was  after  dinner.  I  went  to  mv  hotel  AA  ednes 
dav  night  They  served  summons  on  me  to  come  back  Thursday 
Thursday  I  sat  around  in  the  anteroom  of  the  grand-jury  room  a  ] 
day,  except  I  was  taken  out  by  Mr.  Arnold  a  few  times  and  was  ad 


ministered  some  degrees. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  323 

Q.  Who  is  Mr.  Arnold  ? — A.  He  is  the  assistant  state’s  attorney. 

Q.  What  did  Mr.  Arnold  do  or  say  to  you  ?  What  do  you  mean  ? — 
A.  If  you  want  my  statement,  I  will  tell  you. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  want. — A.  All  right.  About  11  o’clock  Thurs¬ 
day  morning  he  called  me  out  of  the  waiting  room  of  the  grand  jury 
room,  back  into  another  room  right  on  the  same  floor,  and  he  said, 

Shephard,  Bob  Wilson  has  been  in  before  the  grand  jury,  and  he 
<*ave  some  testimony  there  that  }mu  are  going  to  be  indicted  on  for 
perjury.”  Pointing  his  finger  at  me,  he  said,  “  You  have  lied  to  23 
representative  men  of  Chicago.”  I  began  to  expostulate,  but  I  saw 
it  was  useless. 

Q.  To  whom  did  he  refer? — A.  Pointing  at  me. 

Q.  And  the  23  men — who  were  they? — A.  The  grand  jurv. 

Q.  Of  Cook  County? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Go  on. — A.  He  said,  “  You  have  perjured  your  soul.”  He  says, 

Think  what  it  means  to  you.  You  stand  high  in  your  community. 
You  are  an  officer  of  a  bank.  The  gates  of  the  penitentiary  are  open¬ 
ing  to  you.  Now,  the  grand  jury  has  voted  an  indictment  against 
you  for  perjury,  and  it  is  now  drawn,  but  if  you  will  go  back  into 
:hat  grand- jury  room  and  tell  the  truth  and  confess  we  will  nolle 
pros  the  perjury  indictment  and  we  will  give  you  immunity  on  your 
confession.” 

Do  you  want  to  hear  the  rest  of  it  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Go  on. 

A.  I  said,  “  Mr.  Arnold,  that  grand  jury  can  indict  me  for  per- 
ury,  but  you  can’t  convict  me  of  perjury.  I  have  not  perjured  my¬ 
self,,  and  I  will  not  go  there  and  perjure  my  soul  by  the  confession  to 
i  crime  of  Avhich  I  am  as  innocent  as  you  are  just  to  escape  that  per- 
ury  indictment.  Go  on  with  your  perjury  indictment.” 

Q.  Go  on. — A.  After  that  I  was  placed  in  the  custody  of  an  officer. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Whom?  By  whom?— A.  Now,  I  don’t  know  who 
flaced  me  in  his  custody  at  noon.  I  had  to  go  to  lunch  with  him. 

Q.  Where  were  you  when  you  were  placed  in  his  custody? _ A.  I 

vas  up  in  the  waiting  room  of  the  grand-jury  room  and  the  officer 
;ame  to  me;  I  just  can’t  recall  his  name  now. 

Q.  Was  it  Oakley? — A.  Okey. 

Q.  Okey? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  One  of  the  state  attorney’s  police  officers? — A.  I  believe  so.  I 
vent  to  lunch  with  him. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  to  you  up  in  the  waiting  room? — A.  I  can’t 
•ecall.  I  don’t  know  how  I  was  placed  in  his  custody,  or  who,  Judge. 

Q.  Did  he  say  he  had  you  in  custody?— A.  I  don’t  recall  that  he 
lid,  but  he  went  with  me  to  dinner.  He  said — I  would  not  swear 
>ositively  what  he  said — but  I  have  forgotten  now  what  happened, 
>ut  he  went  to  dinner  with  me.  By  whom  he  was  directed  to  do  so 
>r  what  was  said  I  have  forgotten. 

Q.  When  you  say  “  dinner,”  do  you  mean  the  middle  of  the  day? — 
L  Yes;  luncheon. 

Q.  Go  on. 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  he  go  upon  your  invitation? — A.  No,  sir; 
ie  did  not  by  a  good  deal.  We  went  to  a  restaurant  around  the  cor- 
ler  somewhere  from  the  grand- jury  room.  We  had  dinner  or  lunch. 
)ut  in  the  country  we  call  it  dinner,  and  that  is  the  reason  I  get  the 


324  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


two  confounded.  We  went  back  to  the  waiting  room  of  the  grand 
jury,  just  outside  of  the  grand- jury  room.  I  was  kept  waiting 
around  there  the  entire  afternoon,  until  6  o’clock  that  night,  when 
I  was  called  into  the  grand-jury  room.  The  foreman  of  the  grand 
jury  says:  “Mr.  Shephard,  we  have  decided  to  place  you  in  the  cus¬ 
tody  of  an  officer.”  I  said:  “  What  for?”  He  said:  “Well,  we 
think  it  best.”  My  recollection  of  it  is  that  I  said  to  him :  “  What 
have  I  done?  ”  “  Well,  we  think  it  best  to  place  you  with  an  officer. 
You  will  go  with  the  officer.”  I  said:  “Have  you  a  right  to  do 
this?  ”  He  said:  “We  think  we  have.  The  officer  will  treat  you 
kindly.  Mr.  Officer,  you  will  treat  Mr.  Shephard  kindly.”  “  I  have 
no  doubt,”  I  said,  “  of  his  kind  treatment;  but  I  question  your  right 
to  do  this.”  “  Well,  Mr.  Officer,  you  will  take  charge  of  Mr.  Shep¬ 
hard,”  and  Mr.  Officer  did  take  charge  of  Mr.  Shephard. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Where  were  you  at  that  time? — A.  I  was  in  the 
grand- jury  room. 

Q.  Were  there  grand  jurors  present?— A.  The  other  grand  jurors 

were  there.  |j 

Q.  Was  the  state’s  attorney  or  one  of  his  assistants  there?— A.  I 

could  not  say  as  to  that,  I  did  not  notice  that. 

Q.  What  did  the  officer  do?— A.  He  took  charge  of  me.  We  went 
out  of  the  grand-jury  room  and  took  the  elevator  to  the  floor  where 
the  state  attorney’s  office  is  located,  and  we  waited  around  there  about 
an  hour. 

Q.  Did  you  go  into  the  state  attorney’s  office?— A.  No,  sir.  I  was 
with  Detective  O’Keefe  this  time,  and  presently  Mr.  Arnold  came 
back 

Q.  The  assistant  state’s  attorney?— A.  Yes.  He  said,  “  Come  in 
here,  Shephard,”  and  he  took  me  through  offices  in  which  sat  White 
and  some  others,  through  to  an  office  and  into  another  one,  and  pres¬ 
ently  he  went  out,  and  presently  Beckemeyer  came  in,  and  he  said - - 

Q.  Who  said  ?— A.  Mr.  Beckemeyer.  “  Were  you  in  St.  Louis  ” - 

Q.  Who  said  that?— A.  Arnold.  (Continuing.)  “June  15?”  and 
he  said,  “I  was.”  “Did  you  see  Bob  Wilson  there?”  “I  did.” 
“Did  he  give  you  any  money?”  “He  did.”  “How  much?” 
“Nine  hundred  dollars.”  Then  Arnold  looked  at  me,  and  I  said— 
we  call  Beckemeyer  “Becke”  for  short— and  I  said,  “  Becke,  did 
you  see  me  get  any  money  there?  ”  and  he  said,  I  did  not,  Shop. 

I  Said,  “What  do  you  think  about  that,  Arnold?”  and  lie  said, 
«  Beckemeyer,  you  may  come  out.”  He  went  out,  and  then  I  went  out 
back  to  my  officer.  Then  I  left  there  and  went  to  the  Great  Northern 
Hotel,  where  I  had  a  room.  I  had  to  change  my  room  and  get  a  suite 
of  rooms,  two  rooms  with  a  bath  connecting,  and  that  officer  slept  in 
one  room  and  I  in  another. 

Q.  Did  the  officer  go  with  you  when  you  went  from  the  state  at¬ 
torney’s  office  on  that  occasion,  after  Beckemeyer  left  and  you  left  ? 

A.  After  I  came  out  of  the  office  where  he  had  Beckemeyer  before  me, 

Mr.  O'Keefe  took  charge  of  me  again. 

Q.  Officer  O’Keefe?— A.  Officer  O’Keefe;  yes,  sir.  We  stood 
around  there  for  a  while,  I  think  it  was  7  o’clock  before  we  left  the 
criminal  court  building.  We  went  down  to  the  Great  Northern 
Hotel.  Now,  there  is  another  degree  in  the  afternoon  that  I  did  over¬ 
look.  and  inasmuch  as  you  have  asked  for  it,  I  will  give  it.  Arnold 
called  me  in  at  another  time  that  Thursday  afternoon  and  he  said, 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  325 


“Now,  Shephard,  Mr.  Wayman  has  consented  to  give  you  one  more 
chance.”  I  said,  “  That  is  kind  of  him.”  He  said,  “  Beckemeyer  is 
in  there  now  coughing  up  his  guts,  and  if  you  want  to  go  in  and  do 
likewise,  this  is  your  last  chance  to  do  so,”  and  I  said,  “  I  have  got 
no  guts  to  cough  up.  I  don’t  care  to  go  into  the  grand- jury  room  and 
perjure  myself,  and  I  will  not  do  it.”  He  said,  “All  right,  this  is  your 
last  chance.”  Well,  that  was  all  of  that.  Then  that  night  we  got 
down  to  the  Great  Northern  Hotel. 

Q.  When  you  say  we,  who  do  you  mean? — A.  Detective  O’Keefe 
and  myself. 

Q.  Go  on. — A.  He  asked  me  if  he  should  register;  he  said.  “Do 
you  want  me  to  register  under  my  own  name;  my  right  name?” 
“Well,”  I  said,  “I  would  rather  you  would  not,  if  you  would  just 
as  lief.”  He  said,  “What  name  shall  I  use?  ”  I  gave  him  the  first 
name  that  came  to  mv  mind,  “  Ellis  Smith.”  He  registered  as 
“  Ellis  Smith,”  and  he  occupied  one  of  those  two  rooms  that  I  got 
and  I  occupied  the  other.  While  we  were  eating  supper  that  night 
at  the  grill  room  of  the  Great  Northern  Hotel  he  said  to  me,  “  Mr. 
Shephard,  I  am  in  rather  a  dilemma  myself.  I  left  a  baby  very  sick 
with  the  measles  this  morning.” 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  that  doesn’t  cut  any  figure. — A.  Well,  1  want 
to  tell  you. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  doesn’t  matter. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  shows  the  talk  this  witness  had  with  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  I  have  no  objection;  go  on  and  tell  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Go  on  with  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Whether  the  baby  had  measles  or  not  doesn’t  cut 
any  figure. 

A.  It  comes  in  with  what  follows.  He  said :  “  I  would  give  the 
world  to  see  that  baby.  I  can  see  it  in  two  ways.  One  way  would 
be  to  leave  you  in  the  hotel  alone,  which  I  would  be  willing  to  do — 
willing  to  trust  you — but  you  would  have  to  stay  in  your  room,  be¬ 
cause  if  you  went  into  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  somebody  might  see 
you,  and  it  would  get  me  in  bad.  The  other  way  would  be  for  you  to 
go  to  my  home  with  me.”  I  said :  “  Where  do  you  live?  ”  and  he  said 
“  in  Englewood.”  I  said :  “  How  do  you  get  out  there,  on  the  ele¬ 
vated,”  and  he  said :  “  Yes;  by  making  a  change  or  two;  ”  or  possibly 
he  said  three.  I  said:  “  I  want  to  see  the  baby  that  is  sick  with  the 
measles.”  He  said:  “  Would  you  go  out  there  with  me,  tired  as  you 
are?  ”  I  said :  “  I  would  rather  do  it  than  stick  around  the  hotel  here, 
especially  if  I  had  to  stay  in  my  room.  I  would  be  glad  to  go.”  I 
went  to  his  home. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  see  the  baby? — A.  I  did  not  see  the  baby 
sick  with  the  measles. 

Senator  Frazier.  Then  you  can’t  testify  as  to  whether  the  baby 
had  measles  or  not? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  can  not.  He  changed  his - 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  were  several  other  eruptions - ' 

Senator  Paynter.  Did  vou  see  the  baby? — A.  I  did  not,  sir.  He 
changed  his  clothes.  AVe  were  there  about  an  hour,  and  I  think  we 
took  a  Rock  Island  suburban  train  back  to  Chicago,  and  we  got 
back  about  11  o’clock  and  then  went  to  bed.  That  is,  we  went  to  bed 
about  1  or  half  past  1. 


326  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  Officer  O'Keefe  tell  you  he  was  going  to  take 
you  in  custody  when  you  were  leaving  the  state’s  attorney’s  office  in 
the  criminal  court  building,  and  that  he  was  going  to  keep  you  in 
custody  that  night?  Is  that  the  reason  why  you  got  two  rooms  at  the 
Great  Northern? — A.  The  foreman  of  the  grand  jury  room  said: 
“  Mr.  Officer,  you  will  take  charge  of  Mr.  Shephard.” 

Q.  Go  on  and  tell  what  took  place,  the  rest  of  it,  while  you  were  in 
the  custody  of  the  officer. — A.  Well,  we  went  to  bed  that  night.  The 
next  morning,  after  breakfasting,  we  went  back  to  the  criminal  court 
building.  That  was  Friday  morning.  Along  about  11  o’clock  Assist¬ 
ant  State’s  Attorney  Arnold  called  me  into  the  room  adjoining — the 
waiting  room  of  the  grand  jury  room — and  in  substance  he  said  this: 
“  Shephard,  I  am  sorry  I  had  to  treat  you  in  the  manner  I  did  last 
night,  but,”  he  said,  “  we  have  to  do  this  to  get  confessions,”  I  think  he 
said,  “  from  criminals.”  Now,  I  am  not  attempting  to  recite  word  for 
word  what  he  said,  but  it  is  the  substance  of  it.  I  said :  “  I  have  felt 
like  I  was  being  treated  like  a  criminal,  but  I  am  not ;  ”  and  he  &iid, 
“  I  am  sorry  that  I  had  to  do  this  work,  but  I  do  this  as  I  do  all  of  my 
work — as  well  as  I  know  how ;  ”  but  he  said,  “  I  went  to  the  front  for 
you  last  night,  Shephard,”  and  I  said  “  How  ?  ”  He  said :  “  Before 
the  grand  jury,  and  told  them  that  I  had  submitted  you  to  all  of  the 
tests  I  knew  of,  and  that  you  were  weak  in  body  and  I  thought  you 
were  going  to  faint  several  times,  and  that  I  had  come  to  the  conclu¬ 
sion,  and  my  conclusion  I  wanted  to  give  to  the  jury  was  that  Shep¬ 
hard  got  no  money.”  “Well,”  I  said,  “Arnold,  if  you  said  that,  in 
spite  of  what  you  have  done  before,  I  do  thank  you;  but  why  am  I 
in  the  custody  of  an  officer?  Why  was  I  last  night ?  ”  He  said :  “  You 
are  not  now;  you  can  go  to  dinner,”  I  think  he  said,  but  he  may 
have  said  “  lunch,”  “  without  an  officer,  but  would  you  mind  going 
with  Link,  but  not  talking  to  him  about  this  ?  ”  I  said :  “  Will  Link 
be  with  an  officer?”  He  said:  “Yes;  but  would  you  mind  going 
with  him?  ”  I  said:  “  I  don’t  want  to  be  with  an  officer.”  He  said: 
“Wayman  wants  to  see  you  a  few  minutes  after  luncheon  or  after 
dinner,”  then  I  could  go  home.  I  said :  “  If  you  want  to  do  something 
for  me,  take  me  down  to  one  of  your  offices  and  give  me  an  easy  chair 
and  let  me  rest  there.  I  don’t  want  any  lunch  ”  or  “  dinner,”  which¬ 
ever  I  called  it.  All  right ;  he  took  me  down  there. 

He  went  out  and  came  back  in  fifteen  minutes,  and  he  said :  “  Shep¬ 
hard,  you  ought  to  get  something  to  eat,  a  cup  of  coffee  or  something, 
you  need  it.”  I  said :  “  I  believe  I  will ;  are  you  going  to  send  an  offi¬ 
cer  with  me?”  He  said:  “No;  you  come  back  here  any  time  be¬ 
tween  2  and  3  o’clock,  and  come  to  this  room.  You  do  not  need  to 
come  to  the  grand  jury  room.”  I  went  back  there  after  I  had  gotten 
my  luncheon,  and  he  kept  me  sitting  there  until  6  o’clock  that  night, 
right  in  that  room.  About  6  o’clock  he  came  and  asked  me  if  I 
knew  a  man  in  Chicago  named  McMahon;  he  said  there  was  a  man 
out  here  by  that  name  who  wants  to  see  me.  I  said:  “  I  don’t  care 
to  see  him.”  I  said:  “  Is  he  some  reporter?  ”  He  said:  “  No;  he  is 
a  lawyer.”  I  said:  “  I  don’t  know  him  and  I  won’t  see  him.”  He 
said:  “  You  have  got  to  see  him.  I  have  got  to  make  good  for  him.” 
I  said :  “  Is  he  a  Chicago  lawyer?  ”  and  he  said  “  Yes.”  And  I  asked 
him,  “  Is  he  a  reputable  lawyer?  ”  and  he  said  “  Yes.”  And  I  said: 
“  Where  is  he?  ”  and  he  said  “  That  is  he,”  pointing  out  through  an¬ 
other  room,  where  I  could  see  a  large  man  sitting  in  the  hallway.  I 


investigation  of  charges  against  william  lorimer.  327 

^aid:  “  Is  he  that  big  fellow  out  there?  ”  and  he  said  u  Yes.”  T  said: 

Well,  he  looks  pretty  good  to  me,”  and  I  grabbed  my  overcoat  and 
started  out,  and  as  I  got  nearly  there  McMahon  held  out  his  hand, 
and  as  I  remember  it  he  turned  around,  and  he  says,  “  Good  day,  Ar¬ 
nold  ;  come  with  me,  Shephard,  and  I  will  show  them  if  you  can  be 
treated  in  the  manner  you  have  been  treated.”  I  said:  “  This  listens 
good  to  me.”  I  said:  “Who  are  you?  ”  and  he  said,  “I  am  your 
friend.  I  have  been  sent  here  to  get  you  out  of  this.”  So  I  went 
away  with  Lawyer  McMahon. 

Q.  Were  you  taken  before  the  grand  jury  at  any  other  time? 

Senator  Burrows.  I  would  like  to  have  him  go  on  with  his  story. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  there  is  anything  else,  I  want  to  know  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  him  finish. 

A.  We  went  from  the  grand  jury  room,  as  I  remember  it,  down  to 
the  office  of  Murray,  Brown  &  Murray,  lawyers,  and  from  there  we 
went  to  the  Great  Northern  Hotel,  and  I  paid  my  bill  and  took  my 
baggage  and  he  went  to  the  Chicago  and  Alton  depot  with  me,  and  I 
took  the  train  home.  Just  before  I  left  Arnold  said  to  me:  “  If  we 
should  need  you,  Mr.  Shephard,  next  week,  will  you  come  back  with¬ 
out  a  subpoena  ?  ”  And  I  said,  “  I  will.” 

I  went  home  that  Friday  night,  and  Monday  night  Wayman  wired 
me  to  come  back  again,  and  he  sent  me  a  message:  “  It  is  important 
that  you  return  to  Chicago  at  once.”  Well,  I  had  been  subpoenaed 
to  go  before  the  grand  jury  in  Sangamon  County  in  the  meantime. 

Q,  That  is  in  Springfield? — A.  Springfield;  yes.  I  wired’  Mr. 
Wayman  the  next  morning  that — that  would  be  Tuesday  morning — 
wired  him  that  I  was  called  to  Springfield  and  I  would  be  in  Chicago 
Wednesday  morning.  I  took  a  train  leaving  my  town  at  10  o'clock 
and  went  to  Springfield,  and  went  to  State’s  Attorney  Burke  and  I 
told  him  that  Mr.  Wayman  had  wired  me  for  to  come  back,  and  he 
said:  “  You  go  up  and  get  through  with  Wayman  and  I  will  let  you 
know  when  I  can  use  you.  We  have  an  arrangement  by  which  he  is 
to  get  through  with  the  witnesses  before  I  use  them.  All  right,  you 
can  go  to  Chicago.”  Well,  I  took  the  train  out  of  Springfield  that 
night  and  went  back  to  Chicago.  The  next  morning  I  went  to  the 
criminal  court  building,  and  I  was  not  used  that  day.  The  next  day  I 
went  in  before  the  grand  jury  again  for  a  few  minutes,  and  then  they 
excused  me  and  I  went  home  that  night. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  grand  jury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anybody  there  examine  you  or  question  you? — A.  Before 
the  grand  jury? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Yes,  sir;  Mr.  Wayman. 

Q.  What  about;  was  it  these  same  matters? — A.  Yes;  some  of  the 
same  reiterations,  and  he  asked  me  questions.  Is  it  proper  for  me 
to  tell  what  he  asked  me  before  the  grand  jury? 

Q.  Yes? — A.  That  I  never  understood  until  I  saw  the  paper  this 
morning  in  regard  to  that  $500  bill.  Fie  asked  me  if  Bob  Wilson 
gave  me  a  $500  bill  there,  and  I  said,  “  No.” 

Judge  PIanecy.  Where  did  you  see  that  in  the  paper  this  morn¬ 
ing? — A.  I  saw  it  in  the  Tribune  that  Beckemever  or  somebody  had 
testified  that  Bob  Wilson  had  said  he  had  a  $500  bill,  and  that  some¬ 
body  had  told  him  to  give  it  to  Shephard,  and,  as  I  say,  I  never  un¬ 
derstood  what  he  meant  by  asking  me  about  that  $500  bill.  I  never 
understood  it  until  I  saw  that  was  the  testimony  of  Beckemeyer,  and  I 


328  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

made  up  my  mind  that  he  must  have  told  them  something  similar 
then. 

Q.  At  the  time  he  put  that  question  or  anything  in  relation  to  it,' 
between  the  time  that  Wayman  asked  you  anything  about  that  $500 
bill  before  the  grand  jury  last  May  and  the  time  that  you  saw  it  in 
the  Tribune  this  morning,  did  you  know  anything  about  it? — A.  No, 
sir ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  disclose  it  to  the  Tribune  this  morning? — A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  As  far  as  you  know,  nobody  did? — A.  No. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Beckemeyer  testified  to  it  yesterday.  You  know 
it  as  well  as  anybody  else,  J udge. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed  with  vour  statement. — A.  After  the 

•s 

grand  jury  examined  me  I  took  the  train  and  went  home,  and  the  next 
grand  jury  I  appeared  before  was  the  Sangamon  grand  jury  at 
Springfield. 

There  is  something  I  want  to  tell  about  what  happened  before  the 
Chicago  grand  jury,  something  I  neglected,  if  you  will  permit  me  to 
state  it. 

Q.  Go  ahead  and  state  it. — A.  They  did  not  give  me  a  chair.  They 
stood  me  in  a  stall.  I  stood  up  wdien  I  gave  my  testimony.  I  don’t 
know  -what  the  reason  was  for  it.  The  second  week  when  I  went 
back  there,  as  I  went  into  the  grand  jury  room  the  witness  that  was 
there  before  me  must  have  had  a  chair,  because  as  I  got  into  the 
room  a  fellow  grabbed  the  chair  and  was  just  taking  the  chair  out 
of  the  stall  and  was  just  going  away  with  it.  Of  course,  I  had  to 
stand  up.  It  was  the  witness  stand - 

Senator  Burrows.  What  do  you  mean  by  a  stall? — A.  The  wit¬ 
ness  stand.  It  was  a  recess  back  in  a  desk.  I  call  it  a  stall.  You 
stand,  you  see - 

Senator  Burrows.  You  stood  in  that? — A.  I  stood  in  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  was  no  place  to  sit  down? — A.  No;  there 
was  no  place  to  sit  down. 

O.  MT at  was  the  condition  of  vour  health  before  that? — A.  Mv 
health  has  not  been  very  good.  I  have  been  an  invalid  for  eight  or 
nine  years;  not  exactly  an  invalid,  but  my  health  has  not  been  the 
best. 

Q.  Have  you  had  a  very  serious  illness? — A.  Yes;  nine  years  ago. 

Q.  What,  pneumonia? — A.  I  had  malarial  fever,  typhoid  fever, 
followed  by  pneumonia. 

Q.  You  have  never  recovered  from  those  attacks? — A.  I  have  not 
recovered  }Tet. 

Q.  What  effect  did  that  treatment  by  Assistant  State’s  Attorney 
Arnold  and  the  other  treatment  before  that  grand  jury  have  upon 
your  physical  condition,  your  physical  and  mental  condition  there? — 
A.  Well,  I  think  it  was  a  very  severe  strain  on  me,  on  my  nervous 
system.  It  naturally  would  be. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  before  the  grand  jury  here  after  that? — A. 
After  those  two  occasions? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  told  this  committee  now  all  that  you  know  about 
it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  not  indicted,  were  }Tou? — A.  I  was  not,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  329 


Q.  There  was  no  complaint  or  charge  against  you  that  you  knew 
d  at  any  time  while  you  were  in  the  custody  of  an  officer? — A. 
so,  sir. 

Q.  Or  held  in  the  state’s  attorney's  office,  or  in  your  room  at  the 
treat  Xorthern? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  called  as  a  witness  in  any  of  the  Browne  cases  by 
nybodv? — A.  Yes,  sir.  Wayman  subpoenaed  me  as  a  witness  in 
browne's  first  trial. 

Q.  Did  you  testify? — A.  I  did  not  testify.  I  came  to  Chicago, 

'lit - 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  he  did  not  testify,  let  that  answer  it. 

«/  / 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  did  not  testify  in  the  case,  did  you? — A. 
no,  sir. 

Q.  You  came  here  in  answer  to  his  subpoena  ? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  kept  here? — A.  Just  a  clay. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  or  the  second  trial? — A.  That  was  the  first 

rial. 

Q.  Were  you  called  in  the  second? — A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  So  that,  in  fact,  you  did  not  testify  in  either  trial  ? — A.  Xeither 

rial. 

Q.  Did  you,  in  fact,  get  any  money? — A.  I  did  not,  sir. 

Q.  For  voting  for  Lorimer  or  anyone  else? — A.  Xo,  sir.  I  was 
iever  offered  any  money,  and  never  told  that  there  was  any  money 
or  me,  and  never  expected  that  there  was  any  money.  If  there  was 
nv  Shephard  money  for  anybody  else,  I  never  got  it. 

Q.  You  say  “  Shephard  money?  ” — A.  If  there  was  any  money  due 
'hephard  out  of  that  legislature,  somebody  else  got  it,  because  I 
idn’t.  That  is  all.  I  never  had  been  promised  any  money  and  I 
'id  not  expect  any  money,  and  I  never  heard  any  money  spoken  of 
s  going  to  be  paid  in  the  Lorimer  election  or  for  any  other  reason. 
Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Redirect  examination  bv  Mr.  Austrian  : 

«/ 

Q.  You  went  up  to  Browne’s  room  on  the  day  you  fixed  as  the 
1st  of  June,  in  the  Southern  Hotel,  and  you  knocked  at  the  door? — 
t.  Well,  I  presume  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  admitted,  after  some  or  any  delay? — A.  Xow,  I 
lon’t  quite  remember  the  circumstances  of  entering  the  room. 

Q.  Did  any  other  member  of  the  legislature  just  go  in  as  you  went 
'lit,  or  go  out  as  you  went? — A.  Xot  that  I  recall. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  Beckemeyer  did  not  go  in  just  as  you  came 
ut? — A.  I  will  not  say  that  he  did  or  did  not.  I  think  I  saw  Becke- 
never,  as  I  remember,  in  the  room.  I  think  he  was  in  the  room 
chile  I  was  there. 

Q.  That  was  on  June  21? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  Browne  was  there? — A.  When  Browne  was  there. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Browne  hand  Beckemeyer  a  package? — A.  I  did 

iot,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  stay  there  while  Mr.  Beckemeyer  was  there,  or  did 
beckemeyer  leave  before  you  did? — A.  Xow,  I  could  not  say  as  to 

hat. 

Q.  Did  Bob  Wilson  take  you  into  the  bathroom  on  the  21st  of 
hily? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Why  did  Bob  Wilson  take  you  into  the  bathroom  on  the  21st 
■f  July? — A.  I  don't  know;  he  took  me  in  there  to  ask  me  a  question. 


330  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


I  av ill  tell  you  the  question  if  you  want  to  know  what  it  is.  He 
asked  me  who  the  lady  was  lie  saw  me  with  in  the  St.  Nicholas 
Hotel  in  Springfield. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Wilson  is  not  a  married  man,  nor  are  you  s — A.  1 

don’t  know  whether  he  is  or  not ;  I  am  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Neither  of  you  being  married,  that  Question  was  sc 
confidential  that  you  had  to 'be  taken  by  him  into  the  bathroom  sc 
that  he  could  ask  you  privately  ?— A.  I  don’t  know  what  prompted 
him  to  do  it ;  I  can’t  say  as  to  that, 

Q.  Did  he  close  the  door?— A.  I  can’t  say  as  to  that, 

Q.  Will  you  say  he  did  not  close  the  door?— A.  I  am  not  sure 

whether  he  did  or  not.  1  can’t  remember. 

Q.  Were  you  the  least  bit  surprised  that  he  should  take  you  out 
of  the  main  room  and  into  the  bathroom  and  close  the  door  or  not 
close  the  door,  whichever  it  was,  just  to  ask  you  who  the  lady  was 
that  you,  an  unmarried  man,  had  with  you- in  Springfield?  A 
Well-" 


Q.  Sir? — A.  I  was  not  surprised  at  all.  I  did  not  think  of  it 
When  I  told  him  who  it  was,  he  said,  “  I  thought  it  was  somebocb 

else.” 

Q.  Were  you  with  this  young  lady  in  Springfield  when  Wilsoi 
saw  you? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object. 

Mr.  Austrian.  On  the  street  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  on  account  of  the  name  of  the  youn< 
lady. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  not  asking  to  have  the  young  lady 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  know,  and  I  object. 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  entitled  to  know  where  they  were  whei 

Wilson  saw  them. 

The  Witness.  I  will  tell  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  Tell  him,  then. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Tell  me,  then.— A.  At  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  a 
the  dinner  table. 

Q.  There  was  no  secret  about  it?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  a  relative  of  yours?— A.  Yes,  sir;  she  is  my  sister-in 


law. 

Q.  And  you  were  all  in  public? — A.  lies,  sir. 

Q.  At  a  public  hotel  dining  with  her?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  a  great  many  other  people  saw  you  besides  Wilson?  A 

Yes,  sir;  I  presume  they  did. 

Q.  And  just  to  inquire  as  to  who  the  name  of  the  young  lady  was- 
you  having  been  seen  with  her  in  public,  in  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel- 

lie  took  you  into  the  bathroom? — A.  Yes.  . 

Q.  And  that  is  all  he  asked?— A.  That  is  the  only  question  h 
asked  me  there,  and  the  only  conversation  we  had  there ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Frazier.  What  did  Mr.  Browne  want  of  you  when  b 
wrote  you  to  meet  him  in  St.  Louis? — A.  I  don  t  know,  sir.  He  jus 
simply  said  in  the  letter  or  telegram,  whatever  it  was:  “Will  be  i 
St.  Louis  at  Southern  Hotel,”  at  a  certain  date,  “  and  if  convenier 
will  be  glad  to  see  you.” 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  331 


Q.  When  you  saw  him  did  he  make  any  explanation  of  what  he 
anted  or  why  he  had  written? — A.  No,  sir;  I  suppose  it  was  just 
visit.  Mr.  Browne  and  I  were  very  good  friends  during  the  session, 
ad  he  knew  I  went  to  St.  Louis  very  frequently,  as  I  do — I  go  down 
lere  nearly  every  week,  maybe  twice  a  week. 

Q.  He  made  no  explanation  to  you  as  to  why  he  wanted  to  see 
du? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  did  not  talk  politics? — A.  We  may  have  talked  some  poli- 
cs  there  in  the  room.  I  can't  recall  what  the  conversation  was 
lere. 

Mr.  Austrian.  How  long  did  you  remain  with  Browne  that  day — 
hat  time  did  Browne  get  in — what  train  did  you  get  in  on? — A.  I 
Dt  in  on  a  train  that  left  my  town  that  morning;  I  guess  about  9.30 
*  10  o’clock  I  reached  St.  Louis. 

Q.  What  road  was  that? — A.  Chicago  and  Alton  Railroad  Com- 

any. 

Q.  The  Chicago  and  Alton  goes  through  your  town,  too? — A. 
es,  sir. 

Q.  It  goes  through  Ottawa,  doesn't  it,  also  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Sheppard,  you  got  to  St.  Louis  at  9.30,  about? — A. 
ine  thirty  or  10  o'clock;  I  would  not  be  sure  about  that. 

Q.  You  met  Mr.  Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time? — A.  I  can  not  recall  just  the  time.  Possibly  10.30; 
lout  that  time;  it  may  have  been  11  o’clock. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  to  lunch  with  Browne? — A.  If  I  took  lunch 
ith  him  that  dav - 

Q.  Did  vou  take  lunch  with  him  that  dav? — A.  I  think  I  did;  at 

^  ty  J 

ie  Southern  Hotel. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  go  back? — A.  Home? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Along  about  5  in  the  afternoon  I  left. 

Q.  What  time  did  Browne  go  back? — A.  I  don’t  know.  I  left 
imediately  after  lunch  if  I  did  take  lunch  with  him. 

Q.  If  you  did  take  lunch  with  him  you  left  immediately  after 
nch,  did  you  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Which  bank — your  bank  was  open  on  that  day,  wasn’t  it,  the 
st  day  of  June? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  was? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Lee  O'Neil  Browne  always  had  a  contest  to  retain 
is  leadership  of  the  Democratic  party  of  the  house,  didn’t  he? — A.  I 
in't  know  as  to  his  always  having  one.  lie  had  a  contest  the  year 
was  a  member  of  the  house. 

Q.  It  was  the  last  session? — A.  Yes;  he  had  a  contest  then. 

Q.  After  he  had  won  the  contest  of  39  to  25 — the  other  candidate 
as  Mr.  Tibbits,  wasn’t  it? — A.  Yes;  Mr.  Tibbits. 

Q.  Tibbits  was  from  southern  Illinois — that  is  the  part  of  the 
fate  he  was  from? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Tibbits  still  kept  around  him  the  adherents,  the  25  who  re- 
ised  to  follow  the  leadership  of  Mr.  Browne,  didn’t  he? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  So  that  Mr.  Browne  frequently  went  to  different  parts  of  the 
tate,  didn’t  he,  to  keep  in  touch,  and  kept  in  touch  with  those  who 
ere  the  adherents  of  his  in  the  Democratic  party,  didn't  he? — A. 
don't  know  as  to  that. 

Q.  You  don’t  know? — A.  No. 


332  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGATNST  WILLIAM  LORTMER. 


Q.  Isn't  it  the  common  practice  of  all  of  the  people  of  the  soutl 
ern  and  central  part  of  Illinois  to  meet  at  St.  Louis  as  the  most  coi 
venient  place  of  meeting? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Of  going  to  meet  one  and  another? — A.  Yes;  I  have  met  mar 
gentlemen  there. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  were  with  Browne  continuously  for  five  » 
six  months  in  the  legislature? — A.  I  was. 

Q.  It  began  January  4,  and  terminated  on  the  5th  day  of  June,  tl 
4th  or  5th? — A.  Well,  I  saw  him  there  every  day  in  the  session. 

Q.  And  the  day  you  met  him  in  St.  Louis  was  less  than  two  wee) 
after  the  last  time  jtou  had  met  him  at  Springfield? — A.  It  may  1 
possible. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  visit  at  St.  Louis  where  you  met  Browne  w: 
in  response  to  this  letter  or  invitation  from  Browne? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  I  understand  you  that  a  month  later  you  were  there  at  tl 
time  Wilson  was  there? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  I  understand  you  to  state  that  no  communication  was  r 
ceived  from  Mr.  Wilson  or  Mr.  Browne? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  anybod}^  else  inviting  you  there? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And,  as  you  stated,  you  met  him  there  by  accident? — A.  L 
accident;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  all. — A.  I  don't  remember  having  received  any - 

Senator  Frazier.  Did  }tou  give  the  name  of  the  candidate  for  pos 
master  in  your  town - A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  (Continuing.)  That  Mr.  Lorimer  would  have  appointed  if  1 

could? — A.  No.  ; 

Q.  What  Avas  his  name? — A.  I  asked  that  neither  of  two  men  1 
appointed,  Mr.  W.  P.  Richards  or  J.  W.  Becker.  J.  W.  Becker 
editor  of  the  Jerseyville  Republican,  the  editor  who  has,  as  I  sai 
maligned  my  name  and  my  family  and  the  bank  with  which  I  a 
connected  for  years. 

Q.  Mr.  Lorimer  promised  you  that  he  Avould  do  all  he  could 
prevent  either  of  those  gentlemen  from  being  appointed  if  you  won 
vote  for  him  for  Senator? — A.  Tes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  either  of  them  been  appointed? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Anyone  else  been  appointed? — A.  No,  sir;  they  are  both 

office  yet. 

Q.  They  both  stayed  in  the  office? — A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  has  been  no  change  in  the  office  at  all  b 
tAveen  that  time  and  the  present  time  ? 

Senator  Burroavs.  He  has  so  stated. 

A.  No,  sir;  no  change. 

Senator  Frazier.  I  so  understood  him. 

Senator  Burroavs.  When  you  went  to  the  hotel  with  the  office 
why  did  you  ask  him  to  register  under  an  assumed  name? — A.  II 
asked  me  if  I  wanted  him  to  register  under  his  OAvn  name.  He  sail 
“  Of  course,  everybody  will  know  I  am  with  you,”  and  I  said  to  bin 
“  I  Avould  rather  you  would  register  under  an  assumed  name.'’ 
did  not  like  the  disgrace  of  being  under  the  custody  of  an  officer. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  did  not  want  the  register  to  sIioav  that  an  of 
eer  was  registered  there  Avith  vou? — A.  No,  sir. 

O  ' 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Is  there  anything  further  Avanted  of  this  avJ 

ness? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  333 
Judge  Ha nec y.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  need  him  any  further? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  be  discharged,  then,  Mr.  Sheppard. 
The  Witness.  I  thank  you,  gentlemen.  I  thank  you  for  the  oppor- 
nitv  of  telling  my  story. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  want  to  ask  you  a  question,  if  you  will  pardon 
e. — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Sit  down  again  just  a  minute. — A.  All  right. 

Q.  Did  you  make  a  written  statement  of  all  of  this  subject-matter 
m  have  testified  to  and  swear  to  it? — A.  Written  statement  to 
horn  ? 

/ 

Q.  Anyone. — A.  Well - 

Q.  Yes  or  no;  you  know  whether  you  did  or  not? — A.  What  do 
m  mean? 

Q.  At  any  time. — A.  I  may  have  made  a  written  statement  of  some 
‘  this  some  time  ago ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? — A.  Up  there — at  the  time  when  I  came  back  here  to 
hicago  the  second  time  before  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  The  time  Mr.  McMahon  or  Mr.  Murray  represented  you? — A. 
es. 

Q.  Murray  and  McMahon  were  acting  for  Browne,  weren’t  they, 

Springfield,  at  the  time  that  they - A.  I  don’t  know. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Didn’t  you  know  that  they  were  there  representing  Mr. 
rowne’s  interest  in  Springfield  and  undertaking  to  represent  you 
o  before  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury? — A.  No.  sir;  I  did  not. 
Q.  They  never  did  represent  you,  did  they  ? — A.  Before  the  Sanga- 
on  County  grand  jury? 

Q.  In  Springfield  or  here? — A.  They  did  represent  me.  I  paid 
lem  a  retainer  fee. 

Q.  At  whose  suggestion  ? — A.  At  whose  suggestion  did  they  repre- 

■nt  me  ? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  asked  them  to  represent  me. 

Q.  What  is  that? — A.  They  did  represent  me.  I  paid  them  a 
‘tainer  fee. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  McMahon  from  a  side  of  sole  leather? — A. 
knew  Murray. 

Q.  Did  you  ? — A.  I  knew  J.  T.  Murray. 

Q.  When  Murray  was  in  the  legislature? — A.  I  voted  for  John  T. 
[array  for  United  States  Senator  on  one  ballot. 

Q.  John  T.  Murray  was  in  the  legislature  with  you? — A.  John 
. — P.  F.  Murray  was. 

Q.  Pat  Murray,  his  brother? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Mr.  Murray  was  acting  in  Springfield  for  the  various  members, 
le  Democratic  members  of  the  legislature  who  were  subpoenaed 
afore  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury,  wasn’t  he? — A.  I  don’t 
now,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  say  you  don’t  know  anything  about  that? — A.  I  never 
iw  either  of  them  in  Springfield  when  I  was  there.  I  don’t  know 
lat  they  wTere  acting - 

Q.  Who  suggested  Murray  to  you? — A.  Who  suggested  Murray 

)  me? 


334  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Yes.— A.  Nobody. 

Q.  You  just  happened  to  see  Murray,  did  you,  and  hired  hinY- 
A.  Wednesday  night,  when  I  left  the  grand  jury  room,  I  felt  con 
cerned.  I  went  first  to  the  Rookery  Building,  to  the  office  of  Judg. 
Goodrich— A.  A.  Goodrich.  He  was  a  former  townsman  of  mine; 
went  to  see  him  and  I  found  he  was  in  New  York.  So  when  I  got  t 
my  hotel  I  called  up  Murray’s,  and  they  told  me  to  come  to  thei 
offices,  and  I  went  over  there. 

Q.  Row,  McMahon  was  a  lawyer  whom  you  had  never  seen  be 
fore  i — A.  No ;  I  had  never  seen  him  before  he  came  to  me. 

Q.  McMahon  and  Murray  were  two  men;  were  the  two  gentlemei 
at  Springfield  when  you,  with  Tom  DaAvson— when  you  were  sub 
poonaed  before  the  grand  jury  of  Sangamon  County? — A.  Tor 
Dawson  and  McMahon  were  there.  I  didn’t  see  Murray. 

Q.  Well,  the  same  ones? — A.  Yes.  #  ..  . 

Q.  You  gave  them  a  written  statement  and  swore  to  it  immediatel 
after  being  before  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury,  didn't  you?—  A 
Immediately  after? 

Q.  Yes.— A.  Immediately?  No,  sir;  I  gave  them  a  statement — 

Q.  Before? — A.  When  I  was  called  to  Chicago  here,  the  secon 
week  of  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  That  is,  before  you  went  to  Sangamon  County  s — A.  Before. 

Q.  All  right,  just  say  so,  without  making  a  speech.  Did  they  te 
you  that  they  wanted  a  written  statement  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  got  the  written  statement? — No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hand  it  to  State’s  Attorney  Wayman?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  be  surprised  if  it  was  in  Judge  Hanecy’s  possessio 
at  the  present  time? — A.  I  don’t  know  whether  I  would  or  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  do  not  know  win 
this  is%lone  for.  It  is  not,  in  my  possession,  and  I  never  heard  of 
until  this  present  time.  This  is  the  second  time  that  something 
said  on  the  side,  to  have  the  inference  before  the  committee,  in  re 
erence  to  something  that  never  existed,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  anything  further  of  this  witness. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Did  you  ever  discuss  with  Mr.  Ward  or  Mr.  Lorimer  or  M 
P.  H.  O’Donnell  or  Mr.  Erbstein  or  any  other  person  representir 
Browne  in  anv  one  of  the  trials  anything  that  you  have  testific 

to  here? _ A.  Why,  I  think  I  talked  about  my  treatment  that  I  hi 

before  the  grand  jury. 

(A  I  am  asking  you  who  you  talked  with,  when  and  who  ( — - 

Oh,  I  have  talked  to,  after  being - 

Q.  1  am  not  asking  you  that.  Just  state  when  and  who. 

Senator  Frazier:  Just  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  When  and  who? — A.  During  the  day  I  was  he 
before  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  Who  did  you  talk  to?— A.  I  talked  to  the  Murrays. 

Q..  Who  else?— A.  I  talked  to  McMahon. 

Q.  Who  else?— A.  The  next  week  I  talked  to  Mr.  O’Donnell. 

Q.  That  is  Pat  O’Donnell  here?— A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  Pat  O’Do 
ncll  there. 

Q.  Anyone  else? — A.  I  talked  to  Dawson. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  335 

Q.  Tom  Dawson? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tom  Dawson  is  the  man  who  represents  a  number  of  the  Demo- 
ratic  legislators  who  were  indicted  in  Springfield  and  called  before 
he  Sangamon  County  grand  jury;  isn’t  that  correct? — A.  I  under- 
tand  he  represents  some  of  them;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  sc-called  “Tom  Dawson”  was  Democratic 
tate  senator  for  a  number  of  years,  wasn’t  he? — A.  I  believe  he  was. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Long  before  you  were  in  the  legislature? — A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  is  a  practicing  lawyer? — A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  one  question. 

Q.  What  was  the  name  of  the  postmaster,  if  anyone,  that  you 
uggested  to  Senator  Lorimer,  if  you  did  suggest  anyone? — A.  I 
Sidn’t  say  that  I  suggested  anyone.  » 

Q.  Well,  did  you  suggest  anyone? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Who?— A.'  W.  S.  Pitman. 

Q.  W.  S.  Pitman?— A.  Yes;  W.  S.  Pitman. 

Q.  Was  he  a  Democrat  or  Republican? — A.  No,  sir;  he  was  a 
Republican. 

Senator  Paynter.  When  did  you  make  that  suggestion? — A.  Well, 
t  was  along  in  the  fall.  I  think  it  was  in  October,  if  I  remember 
ightly. 

Senator  Paynter.  And  the  election  was  in  May? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  was  in  the  fall  after  Senator  Lorimer  was 
lected? — A.  Yes. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  In  the  fall  of  1909? — A.  Yes.  ' 

Q.  You  felt  that  you  had  a  right  to  make  that  request,  did  you  ? — 
t.  No,  sir;  I  didn’t  feel  that  I  had  the  right. 

Q.  Well,  you  felt  that  you  had  a  right  to  hold  him  to  his  promise 
o  prevent  the  appointment  of  the  two  men  whose  names  you  men- 
ioned,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  felt  that  he  would  keep  his  promise;  yes, 
ir ;  and  I  would  endeavor  to  hold  him  to  it,  if  it  were  possible  for  me 
o  do  so. 

Judge  Hanecy.  In  other  words,  you  would  defeat  either  of  those 
wo  men  in  any  way  you  could? — A.  I  certainly  would. 

Senator  Paynter.  Would  you  have  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  {is 
Jnited  States  Senator  if  he  had  not  made  that  promise? — A.  No, 
ir;  under  no  conditions.  Are  you  through  wdth  me? 

Senator  Burrows.  We  are  through  with  you.  You  may  be  excused. 

John  Henry  De  Wolf,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  being  first  duly 
worn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian  and 
estified  as  follows: 

Q.  What  is  your  name? — A.  J.  If.  De  Wolf. 

Q.  What  are  your  initials? — A.  John  H. ;  John  Henry  is  my  full 
tame. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside? — A.  I  reside  out  from  Canton  Station 

few  miles,  7  or  8  miles  out  in  the  country. 

Q.  What  is  your  business? — A.  Farmer. 

Senator  Frazier.  T  didn’t  hear  that. 

Senator  Paynter.  Farmer, 


336  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  said  farmer. 

Q.  When,  if  at  all,  were  you  elected  to  the  Illinois  legislature?— 
A.  Two  years;  it  wTill  be  two  years  this  November. 

Q.  The  forty-sixth  general  assembly? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  was  the  only  time  you  had  ever  been  in  the  Illinois  legis¬ 
lature? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Mr.  De  Wolf,  when  for  the  first  time — were  you  ever  subpoenaed 
before  any  grand  jury? — A.  No. 

Q.  Never? — A.  That  is,  not - 

Q.  Or  ever  taken  before  any  grand  jury  on  this  matter,  or  any¬ 
thing  pertaining  to  this  matter? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  haven’t  been  put  through  any  third  degree,  then,  have 
you  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  De  Wolf,  you  are  a  Democrat? — A.  Tes,  sir. 

Q.  You  followed  the  leadership  of  minority  leader  Browne,  didn't 
you ;  you  were  one  of  the  men  that  voted  for  him  for  minority 
leader  ? _ A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that?— A.  No,  sir;  I  voted  for  Browne 
for  ininoritv  leader. 

Q.  When  for  the  first  time  did  you  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator? — A.  The  day  he  was  elected. 

Q.  The  26th  of  May? — A.  I  don’t  remember  the  date. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  the  date. — A.  That  is  the  date. 

Q.  That  is  the  date:  that  is  the  first  time? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Mr.  Lorimer  had  been  voted  for  for  United  States  Senator 
before  that  time,  hadn’t  he?— A.  Well,  I  don’t  remember  that  he 
had  now.  he  might  have  been;  but  I  would  not  be  sure  about  that. 

Q.  Is  that  the  first  da^  you  voted  for  a  Democrat — I  mean  for 

a  Republican? — A.  Yes,  sir.  , 

Q.  Up  to  that  day  you  had  been  voting  for  Democrats,  hadnt 

vou? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you,  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  on  the  25th  day  of  May. 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  joint  session,  or  the  house,  whichever 
it  may  be.  toward  evening,  have  a  conversation  with  Charles  A 
White? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  had  a  talk  with  him?— A.  Yes;  I  talked  with  him. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  you  didn’t  have  a  talk  with  him  on  that 
day  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object. 

A.  I  don’t  think  I  had.  I  passed  the  time  of  day  with  Mr.  White 
but  1  would  not  be  positive  now.  I  might  have  talked  to  him.  1] 
won’t  be  sure,  but  I  may  have  talked  to  him  on  that  date.  I  want 
to  be  fair,  and  I  might  have  talked  to  him  on  that  day. 

Q.  I  assume  that  you  want  to  be  fair,  Mr.  De  Wolf? — A.  I  don’t 
remember  the  dates  "now.  I  might  have  talked  to  him  on  that  day 

Q.  Did  you  ever  discuss  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  with  Charlefj 
A.  White? — A.  No,  sir;  I  didn’t. 

Q.  Never? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  De  Wolf,  did  you  discuss  it  with  any  other  Democrat  ? — A 
I  think,  on  the  day  that  Lorimer  was  elected — I  am  not  positive,  bid 
I  am  quite  positive — on  the  day  Lorimer  was  elected,  when  the  senate 
came  over - 

Q.  No;  I  am  asking  you  if  you  had  discussed  it  with  any  other 
Democrats — did  vou  or  didn't  you?— A.  Yes. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  337 

I 

Senator  Paynter.  He  has  answered. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed. 

The  Witness.  The  day  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected,  Mr.  Holstlaw — - 
am  quite  sure  it  was  the  day  he  was  elected — came  in.  Several 
mes  in  the  joint  session  Mr.  Holstlaw  sat  close  to  me  when  the  senate 
ime  over  in  joint  session,  and,  if  my  memory  don’t  fail  me,  Mr. 
tolstlaw  said  to  me,  “  Are  they  going  to  put  Lorimer  over  to-day,” 
r  “  Are  they  going  to  elect  Lorimer  to-day,”  or  something  to  that 
feet.  I  said  I  didn't  know.  “  They  have  been  electing  somebody 
/ery  day."  Now,  I  don’t  know  whether  those  are  the  exact  words 
r  not — “  They  have  been  electing  somebody  every  day.”  “  Now.  if 
ley  are  going  to  elect  Lorimer  to-day,  I  don’t  know,”  or  words  to 
la't  effect,  and  he  asked  me  around  the  corridor  of  the  hotel  on  dif- 
>rent  occasions.  I  know  I  said,  on  several  occasions,  I  was  willing 
)  vote  for  any  Republican  to  break  the  deadlock. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  was  the  fact,  wasn’t  it? 

Senator  Burrows.  He  has  so  stated. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Not  what  he  said;  I  am  not  asking  what  he  said; 
am  asking  if  that  was  the  fact,  whether  he  was  ready  to  vote  for 
try  Democrat,  at  the  time,  to  break  the  deadlock? — A.  I  said  any 
epublican.  I  will  say,  two  or  three  or  four  weeks — two  weeks  any- 
av  prior  to  election. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  But  you  did  not  go  across — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  26th  of  May?— A.  I  did  not  go  across  until  the  26th 
f  May.  I  wanted  to  vote  for  Hopkins,  and  I  was  told  that  Mr. 
topkins  would  not  accept  a  Democratic  vote,  and  I  tried  to  get  other 
lembers  to  join  with  me,  and  Hopkins  was  nearer— did  not  lack  a 
reat  manv  votes  to  be  elected. 

Q.  But  you  never  did  vote  for  him? — A.  No.  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Now,  on  the  25th  of  May,  1909,  in  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  either 
wring  that  day  or  evening,  did  you  ask  Charles  A.  White  whether 
■  not  he  had  been  “up  to  the  trough”  yet?— A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 
Q.  Did  you  ask  anyone  else  there? — A.  No,  sir;  not  to  my  recol- 
ction — not  “  up  to  the  trough.” 

Q.  Y  ell,  what  did  you  say? — A.  I  say  I  do  not  know  now;  I 
light  have  talked  with  him,  because  we  talked  back  and  forth  in 
le  hotel,  right  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  often,  in  a  jocular  way. 
hat  is  not  Avhat  I  meant  about  that  man,  of  what  lie  would  do  or 
lings  like  that. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  such  conversation  or  anything  referring  to 

le  payment  of  money  on  the  night  of  the  25th  of  May,  1909? _ A. 

•o  you  mean  with  anybody  ? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  No,  sir.  If  I  had  any  conversation — if  there  was 
ly  conversation  about  any  money,  it  was  done  in  a  jocular  way. 

Q.  Anything  but  a  jocular  way? — A.  I  don’t  think  I  did;  no,  sir. 
Q.  Will  you  say  you  did  not?— A.  T  do  not  think  I  did;  my  best 
icollection  is  I  did  not. 

Q.  Your  best  recollection  is  that  you  had  no  such  talk  with 
harles  A.  White,  is  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Between  the  24th  and  26th  of  May,  1909,  in  discussing  with 
eckemeyer  the  question  of  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United  States 

70024°— S.  Rep.  942,  Gl-3 - 22 


338  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Senator,  did  yon  say  to  him  that  they  would  have  to  show  you  befor 
you  would  vote  for  him? — A.  .No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  anything  in  substance  of  that  kind? — A.  No,  sir;  no,  sii 
To  my  best  recollection  I  never  had  a  talk  with  Mr.  Beckemeye 
about  the  United  States  Senatorship  or  about  Mr.  Lorimer  in  m 
life.  I  may  have  had,  but  my  best  recollection  is  that  I  had  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  at  any  time — you  know  Mr.  George  W.  English-’ 
1  think  I  have  the  name  correctly — a  member  of  the  legislature  ?- 


A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Sir? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  A  Democratic  member  of  the  house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  the  correct  name? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  Well,  George  English  was  a  Democratic  leader  of  the  house  ?- 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  so. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  George  English  that  you  had  been  approache 
to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  and  offered  money  if  you  would  vote  fc 
Mr.  Lorimer,  or  anything  of  that  kind  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Positive  about  that,  are  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  discuss  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  and  you 
vote,  or  proposed  vote,  with  Mr.  English? — A.  No,  sir;  not  to  m 

recollection.  . 

Q.  Will  you  say  you  did  not  ?— A.  To  the  best  of  my  recollectio 

I  would  sav  no ;  that  is  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  did  anyone  tell  you  that  it  was  “coming  off 
on  the  26th  dav  of  May  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  No  one?— A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  know  before  the  house  convened  in  joint  assembly  ths 
it  was  “  coming  off  ”  on  the  26th  day  of  May  ?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  paid  any  money  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer?  A 

No  sir. 

Q.  Before  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  you  put  a  mortgage  upon  you 
property,  did  you  not?— A.  Before  the— yes,  quite  a  while;  I  put 
mortgage  on  the  property  when  I  bought  it- 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  And  after  the  26th— you  were  in  straitened  circun 
stances,  were  you  not?— A.  I  don’t  know  whether  I  understand  tin 

question.  ' 

Q.  I  mean  hard  up  for  money,  prior  to  the  26th  day  of  May  ?- 

A.  >o. 

Q.  Well,  prior  to  the  4th  day  of  June?— A.  Well,  let  me  get  th. 

straight,  the  4th  day  of  June.  What  do  you  mean,  this - - 

q  "  1909?— A.  That  would  be  a  year  ago  this  June? 

Q.  Yes.— A.  WLy,  I  don’t  think  I  was. 

Q.  You  don’t  think  you  were? — A.  We  put  a  mortgage  on  th 


place,  on  the  108  acres  of  land;  we  bought  108  acres  and  put  a  mor 


gage  on  it  when  we  bought  it.  We  bought  108  acres,  and  there  was 


now,  I  will  not  be  exact  aboi 


mortgage  on  it,  and  we  paid,  I  think 
this,  because  my  memory  don’t  last  me,  and  as  near  as  I  can  get  at  i 
it  is  a  matter  that  can  be  proven  up  by  the  record.  I  think  there  we) 
two  mortgages,  one  for  $800,  maybe  $850,  and  one  for  $1,600,  but  v 
bought  the  place.  Now,  I  paid  for  the  place,  except,  I  think,  $1.60 
Then  in  June,  the  following  June,  we  were  building  fences  and  fixir 
up  the  place,  and  I  borrowed  $500 — well,  not  the  following  Jui 
after — I  do  not  know  whether  the  following  June;  I  am  not  pr 
pared,  gentlemen,  I  think  it  was  June — I  can  tell  you,  I  can  tell  yc 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  339 

•eferring  to  paper]— the  $1,600  mortgage  was  June  15,  1906,  paid 
>r  March  5, 1906 ;  the  $500  mortgage  was  June  6,  and  paid  for — I  say 
ie  $1,600  mortgage  was  paid  for— it  was  put  in  with  another  mort- 
ige,  but  the  $500  mortgage  was  placed  June  6,  1908,  and  taken  up — 
ally  it  was  paid  off,  and  the  other  was  put  in  with  another. 

Senator  Burrowts.  Embraced  in  another  mortgage? — A.  Yes;  with 
lother  mortgage.  I  do  not  want  to  get  ahead  of  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  know  all  the  dates  of  your  real  estate  transac¬ 
ts,  do  you? — A.  No;  I  do  not  know  all  the  dates  of  my  real  estate 
ansactions. 

Q.  Immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature,  did  you 
~»t  invest  $3,600  in  a  piece  of  property? — A.  No;  excuse  me.  Last — 
at  is,  I  invested  in  a  piece  of  property — if  I  invested  in  a  piece  of 
'operty,  it  was  $4,600. 

Q.  Four  thousand  six  hundred  dollars.  What  did  I  say?— A. 
ou  said  $3,600. 

Q*  I  meant  $4,600. — A.  I  understood  you  to  say  $3,600. 

Q.  I  mean  $4,600. — A.  I  bought  a  piece  of  property  for  $4,600. 
do  not  remember  the  time  we  bargained  for  it  now. 

Q.  Did  you  borrow  any  money  to  pay  for  that  property  ? — A.  Yes. 

r. 

Q.  From  whom? — A.  R.  H.  Ilenkle,.  through  R.  H.  Henkle. 

Q.  When  did  you  borroAv  it? — A.  Well,  we  was  to  have  the  money 
i  the  1st  of  March. 

Q.  1909?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  did  you  borrow  it  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  1909?  He  said  he  was  to  have  had  the  money. — A. 
es;  we  was  to  have  had  the  money.  Through  the  money  not  coming 
from  another  loan,  it  was  on  the  15th  day  of  March. 

Q.  You  got  the  money? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  buy  the  property?— A.  I  am  not  sure  when 

3  bargained  for  it;  it  was  along  in  the  fall  or  winter,  I  would  think ; 
would  not  say  when. 

Q.  1909 ?- — A.  Why,  yes;  why,  yes;  1909,  a  year  ago. 

Q.  Isn  t  it  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  you  acquired  that  property,  sir, 

i  the  9th  day  of  August,  1909  ? — A.  It  may  be,  as  the  record - 

Q.  I  am  asking  you.— A.  Well,  I  have  not  got  the  records. 

Q.  (Handing  paper  to  witness.)  Well,  is  not  that  the  certified 
py  of  the  deed  that  was  given  to  you  for  the  purchase  or  acquisition 
the  property  ?— A.  I  won’t  dispute  it;  it  probably  is. 

Q.  Well,  turn  to  the  other  side,  and  state  whether  or  not  it  is. _ 

.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  property  was  acquired  by  you,  wasn’t  it,  on  the  9th  dav  of 
ugust,  1909? — A.  It  was  bargained  for. 

Q.  That  is,  you  bought  it  on  the  9th  day  of  August,  1909?— A.  Yes. 
Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  this  committee,  if  you  please,  sir,  where  you 

4  the  money  which  you  paid  for  that  property? — A.  I  paid  $600. 
my  recollection,  on  that  property,  sir. 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  and  gave  a  mortgage  for  the  balance,  did  you ® — A 
ss,  sir. 

Q.  You  did? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  give  a  mortgage  for  that? — A.  On  (lie  15th  day 
—the  record  shows  on  the  15th  day  of  March,  1910, 


340  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  You  gave  a  mortgage  for  the  same  six  months  after  you  bough 
it  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  Let  me  see  that,  please. 

(Mr.  Austrian  thereupon  handed  paper  to  Senator  Gamble.) 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Isn’t  it  a  matter  of  fact  that  you  gave  a  mortgage  for  $6.00( 
or  purported  to  give  a  mortgage  for  $6,000— now,  wait  until  1  gt 
through— isn’t  it  a  fact  that  you  purported  to  give  a  mortgage  fc 
$6,000  in  March,  1910;  isn’t  that  the  fact?— A.  It  is  a  fact  that  w 
gave  a  mortgage  for  $6,000. 

Q.  On  or  about  the  1st  day  of  March,  1910? — A.  The  15th  c 
March,  I  think.  That  is  the  date  it  was  recorded;  about  the  1st  c 
March,  I  don’t  know. 

Q„  Isn’t  this  the  mortgage  you  have  reference  to  [handing  cloci 
ment  to  witness]  ?—  A.  What,  the  identical  mortgage,  or  a  copy  of  it 
Q.  A  certified  copy  of  it  ? — A.  I  expect  it  is. 

Q.  Sir  ? — A.  I  expect  it  is. 

Q.  And  you  say  that  included  in  that  the  mortgage  which  wi 

given  the  1st  of  March — you  can  see  there - A.  No;  it  was  given  tl 

15th  and  recorded  the  21st. 

Q.  On  the  15th  day  of  March  you  got  the  money  that  you  pai 
for  that  property,  is  that  right  ? — A.  Which  property  ? 

Q.  The  property  that  you  bought  on  the  9th  day  of  August. — A 

Yes,  sir ;  that  is,  we  got - 

Q.  You  have  answered  it. — A.  Well,  I 
right.  There  was  $1,600  and  $500,  which  is  $2,100,  on  108  acres. 

Senator  Paynter.  That  is  on  the  first  piece  of  land?  A.  ^  es,  sij 
that  is  on  the  first  piece  of  land.  So  we  bought  62  or  63  acres  f< 
$4,600.  and  we  gave  a  mortgage  for  $6,000,  took  up  the  16  and 
paid  off  you  might  say,  you  can  put  it  any  way  you  please,  paid  c 
the  $500* mortgage,  but  we  placed  the  mortgage— made  a  new  loa 
have  these  others— because  these  others  were  in  two  mortgages,  ai 
went  to  Mr.  Henkle,  the  same  man  who  we  made  the  first  loan  froi 
and  made  a  loan  from  him  for  $6,000. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  De  Wolf - 

Senator  Burroavs.  Wait  until  lie  concludes. 

Mr  Austrian.  I  thought  vou  had  finished.  I  beg  your  pardon. 
Senator  Burrows.  Out  of  that  loan  you  paid  these  other  moi 
gages  2 — A.  Well,  you  might  say  I  paid  the  $500  mortgage— no,  t 
16^and — I  do  not  know  whether  I  can  get  it  through  your  hes 
straight,  but  we  took  up  the  mortgage.  Now,  we  will  say  there  is 
mortgage  of  $2,100— $1,600  and  $500  on  the  place,  and  we  made  a  n( 

loan  for  $6,000.  ^ 

Senator  Gamble.  And  you  have  the  new  loan  liquidated  '—A.  V 
have  the  new  loan  liquidated  in  this  one  mortgage,  liquidated  t 
prior  mortgages,  and  all  went  in  this  one  mortgage.  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  the  prior  mortgages - A.  Sixteen  and 

$2,100.  ’  J 

Q.  Two  thousand  one  hundred  ? — A.  ^  es,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  And  that  also  included  the  liability  out  of  t 

land  vou  bought? 

Judge  II an ec y.  Four  thousand  six  hundred.  He  said  he  p* 
$600,  $2,600,  and  $2,100, 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  341 

The  Witness.  If  you  can  excuse  me,  I  laid  up  when  I  made  this 
>al,  I  put  up  $600.  There  was  a  tenant  on  the  place,  and  I  could 
it  get  the  place  until  this  tenant  would  go,  and  that  was  fixed  up 
ie  1st  day  of  March. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  I  will  ask  you - 

Senator  Paynter.  Let  the  witness  go  ahead  and  answer  in  his  own 
ay,  so  that  we  know  the  facts. — A.  It  was  fixed  for  the  1st  day  of 
arch.  Mr.  Henkle,  who  the  money  was  loaned  from — I  had  seen 
m  to  get  the  money  before  I  made  the  deal,  and  he  said  I  could  have 
.  The  money  was  loaned  out  and  was  late  coming  in,  so  that  the 
?al  was  not  closed.  Now,  I  do  not  think— that  is  about  the  middle 
:  March.  I  see  this  is  the  copy  of  the  15th  day  of  March  instead  of 
te  1st  day  of  March.  The  money  was  paid  over  to  Mr.  Joliet  by 
enkle. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Joliet  is  the  man  who  you  bought  the  second  piece 
orn? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  four  thousand  six  hundred? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  money  was  paid  to  Joliet  by  Henkle? — A.  That  is  the 
ansaction,  I  suppose  now.  I  never  saw  the  money,  I  don't  know 
iw  it  was  paid,  by  check  or  what. 

Q.  That  is,  you  paid  $600? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  cost  of  the  transfer  for  this  so-called  $4,600  piece,  is  that 
>rrect? — A.  I  paid  what? 

Q.  Six  hundred  dollars? — A.  I  paid  $600  down. 

Q.  On  the  9th  day  of  August? — A.  Yes,  sir;  w^ell,  on  whenever  the 
ied  was  made. 

Q.  Who  prepared  the  statement  that  you  have  in  your  hand  ? — A. 
think  Mr.  Henkle. 

Q.  How  did  you  happen  to  get  that  statement,  Mr.  De  Wolf? — A. 
"ell,  sir,  I  do  not  know  now  about  the  dates. 

Q.  Well  did  you  think  you  would  be  called  on  in  reference  to  these 
icts? — A.  Weil,  I  thought  I  would  probably  be  called  upon  refer- 
lce  to  these  facts;  yes. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  De  Wolf,  let  me  ask  you,  did  you  discuss  with  any 
ie - 

Senator  Paynter.  Before  you  leave  that  I  would  like  to  ask  you 
question. 

Q.  The  vendor — did  I  understand  you  to  say  the  vendor  was  paid 
i  full  $4,600. — A.  Yes,  sir;  when  the  mortgage  was  given.’ 

Q.  And  when  the  deed  was  delivered  in  escrow  you  put  in  $600? — 
..  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  Mr.  Henkle,  the  man  from  whom 
>u  borrowed  the  money,  paid  the  vendor  the  balance? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Senator  Gamble.  Now,  the  mortgage  covered  both  pieces  of  land  ? — 
.  Yes  sir;  both  pieces  of  land,  cleared  it  up  and  put  it  in  one  mort- 

ige. 

Senator  Frazier.  When  did  you  pay  the  $600? — A.  The  date  that 
le  deed — whatever  the  date  the  deed  was  made  out. 

Q.  About  the  15th  of  March  did  you  say? 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  9th  day  of  March,  isn't  it  ?  I  mean  the  9th 
ly  of  August? — A.  When  we  made  the  bargain  I  went  over  to  see 
fr.  Joliet  and  made  a  bargain  for  the  place,  and  then  he  came  over. 
Q.  What  is  the  date? 


342  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  The  date  is  the  9th  of  August,  the  date  of  the  ac 
knowledgment  is  the  9th,  but  was  not  recorded  until  the  21st. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Until  the  1st  day  of  June,  1910,  he  said  it  wa: 
held  in  escrow. — A.  Placed  in  the  bank.  #  .  I 

Senator  Frazier.  When  did  you  pay  the  $600  in  cash  is  what 
want  to  know.  What  date  did  you  pay  the  $600? — A.  I  paid  it  th< 
date  of  the  deed.  He  and  his  wife  came  over  to  my  place  on  Sunday 
Q.  To  your  knowledge  was  that  in  August,  do  you  say  ?  A.  1  ha 
is  a  matter  of  record  that  could  be  seen  to  get  it  correctly. 

Senator  Frazier.  The  deed  would  show  it. 

Mr.  Autrian.  The  deed  does  show  the  9th  day  of  August.  A. 
am  not  positive  if  that  is  a  copy  of  the  deed;  yes,  I  expect  that  wa 
when  it  was.  I  drove  over  there  and  they  came  over  on  Sunday,  h 
and  his  wife;  he  and  his  wife  came  with  him,  and  we  talked  oier  th> 

t  Itl  (l© 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  not  necessary.  Is  that  all  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  one  moment,  if  you  please. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  two  mortgages,  did  you  not  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Your  first  piece  of  property  was  a  farm  of  about  120  acres? — A 
One  hundred  and  eight. 

Q.  One  hundred  and  eight  acres.  A  ou  bought  that  to  run  a  road 
house? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  A  farm? — A.  A  farm. 

Q.  That  place  cost  you  $3,950,  didn’t  it?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  assumed  two  mortgages — one  for  $1,600  and  one  fo 

$850,  isn’t  that  correct? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  mortgages  did  you  assume?— A.  We  assumed  those  mori 

gages, #but  they  were  taken  out  of  the  $3,950. 

Q.  Then  you  did  assume  two  mortgages  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  deducted  it  from  the  purchase  price?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Those  mortgages  were  paid  off,  were  they  not,  in  March,  190i 
is  that  correct? — A.  Yes,  I  think  they  were.  I  made  a  loan  of  Mi 
Henkle. 

Q.  Paid  off  in  March,  1907?— A.  You  got  the  record. 

Q.  They  were  paid  for? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  June,  1908,  you  put  a  new  mortgage  on  the  place  of  $50( 
didn’t  you,  and  used  the  money  for  campaign  expenses?  Isn’t  tha 
right?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  put  a  mortgage  on  the  place? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  $500? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  June,  1907?— A.  Yes,  sir;  but  I  did  not  use  the  money  fc 

campaign  expenses. 

Q.  You  did  not?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  am  not  interested,  then,  if  you  did  not.  In  August,  1909,  afte 
the  legislature  adjourned,  you  bought  another  farm  from  Williai 
Joliet  of  63  acres,  didn’t  you?— A.  Yres,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  paid  $200  down?— A.  On  that  I  thought  I  paid  $60C 

I  would  not  be  certain. 

Q.  Didn't  you  pay  $200  down? — A.  I  think  it  was  $600 — I  can  n( 
be  certain  of  these  things. 

Q.  And  you  agreed  to  pay  the  balance  the  1st  of  March,  1910  .  -1 

Yes.  sir. 

Q.  And  that  place  cost  $1,600,  did  it? — A.  Yres,  sir. 

Q.  You  didn't  pay  the  money  until - 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  343 

Senator  Burrows.  We  have  been  over  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  I  have  not  been  over  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  if  there  is  something  more,  proceed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  state  that  with  all  respect  to  the  committee. 

Senator  Burrows.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Austrian.  My  impression  is  that  it  was  not  gone  over 
horoughly.  If  I  have,  I  am  sorry  to  go  over  it  again. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  witness,  I  think,  went  ahead  and  told  the 
-tory  without  being  led. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  De  Wolf,  I  want  to  ask  you,  Is  R.  F.  Henkle 
he  name  of  the  person  you  traded  with,  or  J,  H.  Davis? — A.  I  did 
ousiness  with  R.  F.  Henkle. 

Q.  Not  Davis? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  anything  about  him? — A.  I  don’t  know  any¬ 
thing  about  J.  H.  Davis. 

Q.  You  never  heard  the  name  before? — A.  Oh,  yes;  I  heard  the 
name. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  man  ? — A.  I  do  not  know  the  man ;  I  do  not 
know  that  I  know  him ;  I  may  know  him. 

Q.  J.  H.  Davis  is  the  name  R.  F.  Henkle  sometimes  does  business 
under? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Oh,  that  it  is? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  R.  F.  Henkle  makes  mortgages  in  the  name  of  J.  H.  Davis 
md  has  them  recorded? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  this  committee  if  anyone — if  you  heard  at  Spring- 
field,  on  the  24th,  25th,  or  26th  of  May,  any  proposition  made  to  you, 
nr  any  other  member  of  the  legislature  in  your  presence,  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  promise  of  reward  if  a  Democratic  member  of  the  legis¬ 
lature  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  discussed  that  feature  with  anyone,  did  you? — A. 
If  I  did,  now - 

Q.  Did  you? — A.  Well,  no;  I  do  not  think  I  did.  If  I  did  I 
might  have  discussed  things  in  the  corridor  when  they  were  joking 

around. 

Q.  No  one  did  offer  you  any  money? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  never  were  “  up  to  the  trough?  ” — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  never  asked  Charlie  White  if  he  had  been  “  up  to  the 
trough?  ” — A.  No,  sir;  I  never  asked  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Dug.  Peterson  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Douglas  Peterson  ever  offer  you  anything? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  that  he  did? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  am  sure. 

Q.  Positive? — A.  I  am  positive  of  that. 

Q.  And  if  you  told  Mr.  English  that  you  were  offered  money  to 
vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  why,  that  was  not  true,  was  it? — A.  If  I  told 
him  no,  it  was  not  true. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him? — A.  I  do  not  think  I  did;  to  the  best  of 
my  recollection  I  would  say  no. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  anyone  or,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  did  anyone 
ever  call  to  you  over  a  transom  in  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel? — A.  Well, 
I  do  not  know  now.  There  might  have  been  somebody  called. 

Q.  Just  a  moment,  I  have  not  finished. — A.  Excuse  me. 

Q.  And  asked  you  to  open  the  door,  or  words  to  that  effect,  and 
offered  you  certain  things  through  the  door  if  you  would  vote  for 
Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir. 


344  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  No  such  tiling  occurred? — A.  No,  sir;  no  such  thing  ever  oc¬ 
curred. 

Q.  You  never  told  anyone  it  ever  occurred,  did  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  And  if  Beckemeyer  said  what  I  have  detailed,  he  is  mistaken, 
is  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  so  is  English? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  so  is  White? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  they  lied,  did  they? — A.  Oh,  I  would  not  say  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  hardly  a  proper  word. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Told  a  falsehood,  put  it  that  way.  I  will  withdraw 
the  statement — told  an  untruth. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  De  Wolf,  what  was  the  inducement,  if  any 
of  any  kind,  that  induced  you  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Well 
sir,  I  will  be  glad  to  tell  you.  I  was  anxious  to  break  the  deadlock 
Now,  I  voted  for  Lorimer.  I  was  a  farmer;  went  to  the  legislature 
expecting  to  save  a  pittance  of  my  salary;  that  is  what  induced  me 
to  go  there,  gentlemen.  I  was  a  poor  man  and  acquired  this  little 
land;  and  I  was  elected  sheriff,  my  wife  running  the  jail;  and  1 
boarded  the  prisoners  and  saved  that  up,  and  that  induced  me  to  gd 
to  the  legislature,  and  it  was  so  stated  in  my  campaign  that  I  coule 
be  honest  and  save  up  $1,000.  I  was  there  for  three  or  four  months 
and  nearly  all  the  time  there  was  a  deadlock  on;  and  as  I  was  then 
a  while  I  tried  on  different  occasions  to  get  the  fellows  to  elect  Mr 
Hopkins — for  enough  Democrats  to  elect  Mr.  Hopkins.  I  think  p 
few  days — a  day  or  so,  I  would  not  be  sure — Mr.  Lorimer  came.  1 
do  not  know  whether  he  sat  down,  but  I  think  he  sat  down  on  i 
chair  close  to  me,  and  he  said,  “  Mr.  De  Wolf,  I  understand  you  art 
willing  to  vote  for  a  Republican  for  United  States  Senator,”  and 
said,  “I  am.”  “Well,”  he  says,  “I  am  thinking  about  being  a  can 
didate,”  and  I  says,  “  If  you  are,  I  will  vote  for  you.” 

Q.  How  long  was  that  before  the  date  that  you  voted  for  him?— 
A.  I  would  not  state ;  a  day  or  two  or  maybe  three  days  before ;  ho\ 
long,  I  do  not  remember  well.  If  I  am  not  badly  mistaken,  Mi 
Lorimer  told  me — he  says:  “I  am  a  Republican  of  the  old  school, 
or  words  to  that  effect,  “  of  high  protection.  If  you  are  a  Democrat 
you  don’t  believe  that.”  I  sa}^s:  “No;  I  can  not  vote  for  you,  be 
cause  I  do  not  believe  in  high  protection ;  but  I  would  like  to  get  thi 
up  high  enough  so  that  the  people  will  know  what  is  hurting  them. 
I  was  raised  a  Republican,  gentlemen — I  do  not  want  to  make 
speech — until  1896,  and  as  a  question  of  principle  you  are  voting  to 
a  Republican  anyway.  I  wanted  to  get  out  my  work  and  get  bad 
home. 

Senator  Paynter.  Was  it  your  desire  when  you  tried  to  organiz 
to  get  these  Democrats  to  vote  for  Hopkins — that  means  you  objects 
to  the  legislative  deadlock  ? — A.  To  the  deadlock.  We  had  not  done 
thing  in  legislative  ways.  I  wanted  to  do  my  work  and  get  home 
get  back  home. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Five  legislative  days  after,  Mr.  Lorimer  wa 
elected. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  am  not  asking  about  Mr.  Lorimer. — A.  I 
they  held  session  all  day,  they  would  not  do  a  thing.  I  did  not  be 
lieve  in  this;  I  wanted  to  do  the  work  and  go  home;  do  what  you  ar 
going  to  do. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  345 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  were  ready,  Mr.  De  Wolf,  to  vote  for  Senator 
Jopkins’s  reelection? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Until  you  heard  somebody  say  that  he  did  not  want  any  Demo- 
:rats  to  vote  for  him? — A.  I  heard — well,  it  was  discussed  in  the 
obby  of  the  St.  Nick.  Some  of  the  Hopkins  fellows  said  he  would 
lot  accept  a  Democratic  vote.  This  I  said  on  account  of  the  primary. 

Q.  And  you  never  did  receive  anything  for  your  promise  to  vote 
’orLorimer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  For  voting  for  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Witness,  did  you  go  to  Mr.  Hopkins  and  tell 
lim  you  were  ready  to  vote  for  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  any  of  his  managers  or  leaders  down  there  and 
ell  them  you  were  ready  to  vote  for  him? — A.  No. 

Q.  Mr.  De  Wolf  are  these  your  certified  copies  of  your  paid  vouch- 
ts  that  you  drew,  as  a  member  of  the  legislature,  mileage,  and  so 
“orth  [handing  documents  to  witness]  ? — A.  I  expect  they  are. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  want  these  identified.  They  are  deeds  and  the 
nortgage  in  question  and  the  vouchers. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  encumbering  the  record  with  these. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  let  them  be  identified;  I  just  wanted  to  have 
hem  identified,  so  that  we  need  not  have  to  call  this  witness  back. 

The  Witness.  I  want  to  explain  another  thing  to  the  committee. 
Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment,  and  you  can  explain. 

Senator  Burrows.  They  can  be  identified,  but  not  admitted  in  evi- 
lenoe  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  just  want  to  identify  them,  so  that  there  will  be 
10  dispute  that  they  are  De  Wolf’s  exhibits.  Call  them  De  Wolf’s 
Exhibits  1,  2,  3,  and  4. 

Judge  Hanecy.  For  identification;  for  identification  only. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  not  going  to  offer  them  at  this  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Your  statement  was  44  De  Wolf  exhibits.” 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  are  not  in  evidence. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Being  marked  for  identification  does  not  neces- 

arilv  put  them  in  evidence  at  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  to  identifv  them. 

«/ 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  I  mean  is,  if  he  marks  them  De  Wolf  Ex- 
libits  1,  2,  3,  and  4,  they  will  be  taken  as  in  evidence. 

Senator  Heyburn.  They  are  just  in  for  identification. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  said  mark  them  De  Wolf  Exhibits  1,  2,  3,  and  4. 
(Which  said  papers  were  marked  44  De  Wolf  Exhibits  1-D,  1-E, 
-F,  and  1-G,”  respectively.) 

Edwin  R.  Wright,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first 
Inly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and 
estified  as  follows: 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name? — A.  Edwin  R.  Wright. 

Q.  Speak  up  loud,  so  that  everyone  can  hear  you.  What  is  your 
•usiness? — A.  President  of  the  Illinois  State  Federation  of  Labor. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  as  president  of  the  Illinois 
hate  Federation  of  Labor? — A.  Four  years. 

Senator  Burrows.  Can  you  speak  a  little  louder,  Mr.  Wright? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Keep  your  voice  that  way,  I  can  get  it. — A.  Four 
ears. 

Q.  Mr.  Wright,  do  you  know  Charles  A.  White? — A.  I  do. 


846  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHANGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  L0B1MER. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Charles  A.  White? — A.  Between 
three  and  four  years. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wright  have  any  conversation  with  you  in  reference 
to  the  publication  of  his  experience  at  the  Illinois  legislature?  Just 
answer  that  yes  or  no. — A.  Yes. 

Q.  At  what  time?— A.  I  think  it  was  the  23d  day  of  last  October. 

Q.  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  direct  him  where  to  go  with  reference  to  them;  and  it 
so,  when  ? — A.  That  will  take  a  little  explanation. 

Q.  Give  it.— A.  Mr.  White  came  to  me  in  Chicago  last  fall,  if  I 
remember  rightly,  and  told  me  that  he  had  a  story  written  out  that 
he  wished  to  dispose  of  for  publication.  He  told  me  that  he  had 
submitted  the  story  to  Everybody’s  Magazine,  I  believe.  And  he 
afterwards  told  me"  that  they  had  decided  not  to  use  it.  He  told  me 
that  he  had  attempted  to  sell  it  to  different  other  magazines  and 
failed,  and  he  had  decided  to  try  some  of  the  newspapers  in  Chicago. 
I  am  a  printer  by  trade,  and  White  came  to  me  and  asked  regarding 
different  newspapers  and  as  to  their  method  of  handling  news 
stories,  and  so  forth,  and  asked  me  in  regard  to  the  different  papers 
in  the  city  of  Chicago.  I  think  he  mentioned  most  of  the  newspapers 
and  asked  regarding  their  policy  of  carrying  a  story  of  some  length. 
I  told  him  that  the  several  papers,  mentioning  two  or  three  of  them. 
I  think,  were  given  to  condensing  their  matter,  and  were  not  in  the 
habit  of  issuing  a  long  story.  It  came  about  in  this  way  :  He  said 
he  did  not  care  to  use  two  or  three  columns  of  space,  but  if  possible 
he  wished  the  story  that  he  had  written  to  be  printed.  After  speak¬ 
ing  of  the  News,  the  Post,  the  Journal,  and  the  Hearst  newspapers 
he  told  me  that  he  intended  going  to  the  Inter-Ocean  and  see  if  he 
could  not  dispose  of  the  story  there,  and  he  asked  me  in  regard  to  the 
matter.  I  told  him  that  he  was— he  possibly  could  have  the  storj 
printed,  and  asked  him  in  regard  to  the  story,  and  he  told  me  that 
it  would  contain  the  names  of  several  prominent  politicians,  and  aftei 
discussing  the  matter  for  a  while  I  suggested  to  him  that  he  woulc 
probably  find  a  better  market  for  the  story  he  had  either  at  th( 
Record  Herald  or  the  Tribune.  Does  that  answer  your  question  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  And  that  is  the  story  uncondensed;  your  story  uncondensed? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Is  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

A.  I  do  not  understand  you,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Is  that  the  whole  story,  your  own  story? — A.  . 
was  answering  a  question. 

Q.  Is  that  your  story?— A.  I  do  not  know,  I  was  trying  to  answe: 
a  question. 

Q.  Is  that  all?  Have  you  answered  all? — A.  I  could  not  tell  you 
sir. 

Q.  You  don’t  know.  What  is  your  business? — A.  I  am  a  labo 
organizer. 

Q.  Well,  I  know  you  said  you  were  president  or  are  president  o 
the  state  Federation  of  Labor?  Are  you  holding  any  other  job?  A 
No,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  341 

Q.  Have  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What?— A.  Well,  sir,  I  worked  at  my  trade  for  twenty-odd 
years. 

Q.  Did  you  hold  any  job  under  the  State? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  never  appointed  to  any  place? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  have. 

Q.  Do  you  hold  a  place  now  under  Governor  Deneen  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q*  When  did  you  ? — A.  Up  until  the  15th  of  this  month. 

Q.  What  was  that  place? — A.  I  was  acting  as  a  member  of  the 
employers’  liability  commission. 

Q.  And  when  were  you  appointed  to  that  place? — A.  Last  spring-. 

Q.  Of  this  year? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  kept  that  place  up  to - A.  The  15th  of  September. 

Q.  The  15th  of  this  month? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hold  any  other  appointment  from  Governor  Deneen 
before  that  time? — A.  Yes,  sir;  several — I  was  appointed  to  a  com¬ 
mission  that  made — let  me  see— it  was  on  corporations  and  trusts,  I 
believe  a  year  or  so  ago. 

Q.  When  were  you  appointed  to  that  ? — A.  Oh,  a  year  or  two  ago. 

Q.  And  you  held  that  place  up  to  when? — A.  I  think  I  held  that 
place  thirty-three  days. 

Q.  And  were  you  appointed  to  any  other  place  by  Governor 
Deneen  ? — A.  Let  me  see,  I  believe  I  have  held  one  or  two  honorary 
positions.  I  have  never  held  a  place  where  I  drew  any  money  from 
he  State  of  Illinois. 

Q.  But  you  have  held  a  number  of  appointments,  a  number  of 

positions  by  appointment  of  Governor  Deneen,  of  this  State? _ A. 

Due  or  two  minor  appointments  of  that  kind,  merely  complimentary 
ippointments. 

Q.  You  are  a  close  personal  and  political  friend  of  Governor 
Deneen  ? — A.  I  am  not  a  politician. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  that. — A.  You  asked  me  if  I  was  a  political 
friend  of  his. 

Q.  Are  you  a  friend  of  his  ? — A.  Personally  I  have  a  very  friendly 
feeling  toward  the  governor. 

Q.  Are  you  a  Democrat  or  a  Republican? — A.  I  am  a  labor  man. 

Q.  Are  you  an  adherent  of  either  of  the  two  great  parties,  Re¬ 
publican  or  Democrat? — A.  I  vote  for  the  man  who  I  think  is  the 
jest  fitted  for  the  position. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  tell  me  whether  you  are  a  Democrat  or  a  Repub- 
ican. — A.  Well,  I  voted  at  the  Republican  primaries  and  voted  at  the 
Democratic  primaries.  At  the  last  primary  I  voted  at  the  Republican 
primary. 

Q.  Before  that  what  had  you  been,  a  Republican  or  a  Democrat? _ 

V.  Why,  I  voted  for  Republicans,  Democrats,  and  Socialists;  without 
•egard  to  the  party  I  vote  for  the  man. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  do  not  see  the  relevancy  of  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Very  well;  I  do  not  care  to  press  it,  then.  That 
s  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  Call  Mr.  Walker. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Walker  is  a  witness  in  rebuttal. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  Ross  here? 

Mr.  Nixon.  He  is  not  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Merritt? 

Mr.  Nixon.  He  is  not  here. 


348  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOillMER. 


Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Ford  ? 

Mr.  Nixon.  He  is  not  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  Mr.  Eldridge? 

Mr.  Nixon.  Eldridge  is  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Eldridge  and  Walker,  I  told  the  Sergeant-at-Arms, 
are  witnesses  in  rebuttal. 

Mr.  Nixon.  Does  the  committee  discharge  Mr.  Meyers  finally? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Mr.  Nixon.  Is  Mr.  Shephard  discharged  finally? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  he  was  discharged.  Is  Mr.  Gray  in 
rebuttal  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Gray  is  in  rebuttal. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mrs.  Luke? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mrs.  Luke  is  a  witness;  yes.  Is  she  here? 

Mr.  Nixon.  There  is  a  telegram  explaining  her  condition. 

Senator  Burrows.  She  has  telephoned  she  is  ill. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  we  adjourn  I  would  like  tc 
offer  this  statement  in  evidence. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  it?  Do  you  want  to  introduce  that? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do. 

Senator  Burrows.  Any  objection? 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  a  concession  of  Holstlaw. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  confession? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  call  it  anything  you  like. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  it  is  the  paper  you  showed  Holstlaw. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Paper  signed  by  Mr.  Holstlaw. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  no  objection. 

Senator  Burrows.  No  objection  to  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  is  in  evidence. 

(Which  said  document  last  above  referred  to,  marked  “  Exhibii 
1-H,”  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 

Statement  of  D.  W.  Holstlaw. 

Q.  What  is  your  name?— A.  D?  W.  Holstlaw. 

Q.  What  is  your  age,  residence,  and  occupation? — A.  I  am  G1  years  old 
residence  Iuka,  Ill.;  my  occupation  is  banking,  farming,  and  shipper  of  liv< 

St  Q.  You  are  a  member  of  the  general  assembly  of  Illinois? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  senator  from  the  forty-second  district,  are  you?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  understand  that  you  want  to  make  a  statement  of  your  connection  witl 
the  purchase  of  furniture  for  the  senate  and  house  assembly  rooms  as  a  membe 
of  the  committee  appointed  by  the  legislature  for  that  purpose— A.  I  do. 

Q.  This  statement  when  made  is  to  be  submitted  to  the  state’s  attorney,  San 
gamon  County,  ns  I  understand? — A.  That  is  what  I  understand. 

Q.  Who  constituted  the  committee? — A.  Secretary  Hose  is  chairman  am 
Representative  Pierce  is  secretary,  and  Senator  Pemberton  and  Representativ 
J.  O.  S.  Clark  and  myself  were  a  part  of  the  commission. 

Q.  You  may  state  any  conversation  you  may  have  had  with  your  associate 
on  the  committee  or  any  of  them  about  whether  you  would  get  anything  out  o 
letting  the  contract  for  yourselves— A.  They  both  of  them,  Pemberton  am 
Clark,  both  said  that  we  would  get  something  out  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  afterwards  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Freyer  or  Mr.  Johr 
son  on  the  same  subject,  and  if  so,  what  was  said  between  you  and  them  on  tha 
subject? — A.  Mr.  Freyer,  first  asked  me  what  I  would  want.  I  think  that  wa 
what  he  said.  I  can  not  hardly  recall  what  he  said  to  me.  I  do  not  know  what 
did  say  to  that,  but  we  never  finished  talking.  But  I  ought  to  say — I  do  nn 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  349 


know  whether  I  told  him  or  not,  I  think  he  asked  me  what  I  would  want  out 
if  it,  and  I  think  I  gave  him  an  evasive  answer,  and  I  did  not  want  to  do 
mything  of  that  kind;  then,  when  he  got  ready  to  go  out,  he  said,  “You  go 
ihead  and  fix  it  up  with  Mr.  Johnson.  Whatever  he  does  is  all  right.”  That  is 
ill  as  I  remember  that  he  said. 

Q.  Did  you  afterwards  agree  with  Mr.  Johnson  how  much  you  were  to 
lave? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  much  did  Mr.  Johnson  agree  to  give  you? — A.  One  thousand  five  hun- 
Ired  dollars. 

Q.  When  was  it  to  be  paid?— A.  After  the  furniture  was  received. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Johnson  say  anything  to  you  on  the  subject  of  what  he  was  pay¬ 
ing  anyone  else  on  the  committee,  and  if  so,  what  did  he  say? — A.  He  said  that 
ivas  more  than  he  was  paying  anybody  else,  and  he  said  that,  if  I  remember 
ight,  he  said  $1,000  was  what  he  was  going  to  give  Clark  and  Pemberton. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  either  Clark  or  Pemberton  as  to  how  much 
hey  were  to  receive? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Has  anything  ever  been  paid  to  you?— A.  Not  a  cent. 

Q.  Now,  is  there  any  other  fact  that  you  can  state  in  connection  with  this 
natter  that  you  now  recall  without  being  questioned  about  it? — A.  I  do  not 
hink  of  anything  else. 

Q.  You  are  a  Democrat,  are  you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Before  the  voting  came  off  was  anything  said  to  you  about  paying  you 
mything  for  voting  for  Lorimer?— A.  There  was. 

Q.  Who  talked  to  you  on  that  subject,  and  what  was  said?— A.  Senator 
Broderick,  of  Chicago.  He  said  to  me:  “Mr.  Lorimer  is  going  to  be  elected 
o-morrow  ” — that  is  as  well  as  I  remember  the  date,  and  he  said:  “There  is 
>2,500  for  you  if  you  want  to  vote  that  way,”  and  the  next  morning  I  voted  for 
bin. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Broderick  that  you  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  I  do 
lot  know  whether  I  did  or  not,  but  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  afterwards  receive  any  money  from  Mr.  Broderick,  and  if  you 
lid,  when  and  where  was  that? — A.  I  received  $2,500  in  his  office  at  one  time, 
ind  I  do  not  know  whether  I  received  the  other  at  the  same  time  or  not,  but  I 
ather  think  it  was  at  another  time  I  received  about  $700;  I  think  it  was  about 
hat. 

Q.  What  was  the  $2,500  for? — A.  It  was  for  voting  for  Lorimer. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  $700  for? — A.  Well,  he  never  said  and  I  did  not  ask 
iim.  He  said  there  was  that  much  coming  to  me  and  handed  it  to  me;  that 
s  all  that  was  said  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  matter  connected  with  legislative  bribery  dur- 
ng  the  last  session  of  the  legislature  that  you  now  recall? — A.  I  do  not. 

This  statement  is  made  voluntarily,  because  I  feel  it  is  right  to  make  it  and  I 
lo  not  feel  that  I  can  live  an  honest  life  without  making  a  full  disclosure  of 
he  truth  respecting  these  matters  to  the  public  authority. 

This  statement  is  made  for  the  use  of  the  State’s  attorney  of  Sangamon 
'ounty  and  before  I  signed  the  same  I  have  had  it  read  over  to  me  in  detail 
ind  fully  understand  its  contents.  I  have  also  carefully  read  the  same  myself. 

Dated  at  Springfield,  Ill.,  May  28,  1910. 

D.  W.  Holstlaw. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  now  adjourn. 

Whereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  10  o’clock  a.  m.,  Satur- 
lay,  October  1,  1910. 

SATURDAY,  OCTOBER  1,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

At  10  o’clock  a.  m.  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and 
he  following  proceedings  were  had. 

The  following  members  of  the  subcommittee  being  present:  Hon. 
1.  C.  Burrows,  chairman,  Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble,  Hon.  W.  B.  Hev- 
>mn,  Hon.  James  L.  Paynter,  Hon.  Joseph  F.  Johnston,  and  lion, 
lames  B.  Frazier. 


350  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER 


Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  please  come  to  order.  Is 
Mr.  De  Wolf  here? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Before  Mr.  De  Wolf  is  called,  may  I  have  it  post¬ 
poned?  I  did  not  know  that  Mr.  De  Wolf  was  here.  I  have  some 
documents  coming  from  my  office  that  I  sent  for  and  I  would  like 
to  have  them  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  is  advised  that  Mr.  De  Wolf 
desires  to  correct  a  statement — statement  that  he  made  yesterday. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  it  be  delayed  for  a  little  while  so  that  I  can 
send  for  those  documents,  and  it  will  prevent  two  examinations. 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understand  Mr.  Clark  is  here.  Will  you  call 
Mr.  Clark? 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Joseph  S.  Clark  present? 

Mr.  Clark.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  the  same  rule  invoked  here  as  with  the 
other  witness. 

Senator  Bukroavs.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  the  privilege  of  cross-examining  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. 

Joseph  S.  Clark,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly 
sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian  and  testi¬ 
fied  as  follows: 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  is  your  name? — A.  Joseph  S.  Clark. 

Q.  What  is  your  business,  Mr.  Clark?— A.  Well,  I  am  police  magis¬ 
trate  in  the  city  in  which  I  live  and  I  am  somewhat  interested  in  the 
lumber  business. 

Q.  Just  direct  your  answers  that  way  so  that  the  committee  will 
get  your  answers,  and  I  will  hear  you  all  right.— A.  All  right. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Keep  your  voice  up  so  that  the  stenographer  will 

get  it,  please. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside,  Mr.  Clark?— A.  Vandalia,  Ill. 

Q.  When  were  you  elected— if  at  all — elected  to  the  Illinois  legis¬ 
lature? — A.  I  was  elected  in  November,  1906,  I  believe,  first. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  session  of  the  legislature  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  for  the  second  time,  if  at  all? — A.  1908. 

Q.  Both  times  a  Democrat  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Both  times  to  the  lower  house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  House  of  representatives? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  were  you  one  of  the  Democrats— I  am  talking  nov 
about  the  last  generaf  assembly,  the  forty-sixth— who  were  knowr 
as  one  of  the  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  minority  faction  in  the  house?— 

A  Y es  si  r . 

Q.  And  you  followed  his  leadership,  didn’t  you?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  for  the  first  time  did  you  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  foi 
United  States  Senator?— A.  I  believe  it  was  in  May,  1909. 

Q.  That  is,  the  first  time  you  ever  voted  for  Air.  Lorimer  foi 
United  States  Senator  was  the" day  he  was  elected? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  on  the  26th  dav  of  May,  wasn’t  it?— A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  When,  after  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  if  you  recall,  did  th< 
Illinois  legislature  adjourn?— A.  I  don’t  recollect  exactly. 

Q.  It  was  about  a  week  or  ten  days  thereafter,  was  it  not?— A.  I 
might  have  been ;  it  was  not  very  long. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  351 

Q.  Had  you,  prior  to  the  26th  day  of  May,  Mr.  Clark,  prior  to  the 
{6th  day  of  May,  1909,  during  that  joint  session  of  the  joint  assem- 
)ly,  known  as  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  voted  for  a  Repub- 
ican  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  don’t  know;  I  voted  for  six 
)r  seven  different  candidates.  I  voted  most  of  the  time  for  Mr. 
Stringer. 

Q.  Stringer  was  the  Democratic  nominee? — A.  Stringer  was  the 
democratic  nominee. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  committee  any  Republican  candidate  for 
Jnited  States  Senator  for  whom  you  voted  prior  to  the  26th  day  of 
day,  1909? — A.  I  voted  for  some  men  whom  I  didn’t  know  their 
)olitics. 

Q.  That  was  at  the  request  of  some - A.  Some  of  my - - 

Q.  Constituents? — A.  Of  my  colleagues. 

Q.  That  is  what  they  referred  to  as  a  complimentary  vote? — A.  A 
omplimentary  vote. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  who,  if  anyone,  asked  you  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
or  United  States  Senator? — A.  No  person  ever  asked  me  to  vote  for 

dr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  You  did  it  of  your  own  volition? — A.  I  did  it  of  my  own  free 

nil. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  up  your  mind  to  vote  for  Lorimer  ?— A.  It 
vas  Friday  evening  or  Saturday  at  my  home,  previous  to  the  election 

>f  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  the  date,  the  day  of  the  week,  that  Mr.  Lorimer 
vas  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate? — A.  I  don’t,  but  I  believe 
t  was  on  Thursday,  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Q.  Then,  after  your  return  from  your  home — where  did  you  say 
'our  home  was? — A.  Yandalia. 

Q.  After  your  return  from  your  home  to  Springfield,  you  did  not 
nnounce  to  anyone  that  you  intended  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  did 
ou? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  never  did  announce  to  anyone  that  you  did  intend  to  vote 
or  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Until  you  voted? — A.  Until  I  voted. 

Q.  You  are  positive  about  that? — A.  I  would  like  to  correct  a 
tatement. 

Q.  All  right. — A.  My  correction  is  right  here.  The  gentleman 
rho  was  in  charge  of  the  coat  room  on  our  side  of  the  house  came  to 
ne  perhaps  fifteen  minutes  before  the  roll  was  called  to  vote  for 
Jnited  States  Senator,  and  he  says,  “  Mr.  Clark,”  or  “  Joe  ”  or 
Uncle  Joe” — they  call  me  both — he  says,  “you  should  vote — you 
•light  to  vote  for  Lorimer  to-day.”  I  answered  him,  and  I  says, 
Who  sent  you  here?  ”  He  says,  “  No  one.” 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  was  the  only  conversation? — A.  That  was  the 
nly  conversation  I  had  after  leaving  mv  home. 

Q.  You  did  not  even  disclose  that  conversation  to  anyone? — A.  I 
ever  disclosed  that,  only  at  my  home. 

Senator  Johnston.  Did  you  tell  him  you  were  going  to  vote  for 
primer? — A.  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  Mr.  Clark,  after  you  had  made  up  your  mind 
t  your  home  in  Yandalia  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  which  was  sev- 
ral  days,  as  I  understood  you  to  sav,  prior  to  your  voting  for  Mr. 

•  *  ~jr  %//■+*  V 

lorimer - A.  Yes. 


352  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  (Continuing.)  Why  did  you  not  vote  for  Lorimer  on  the  first 
ballot  after  you  got  back 'into  the  joint  session  of  the  general  assem¬ 
bly?— A.  I  would  not  vote  for  any  Republican  unless  my  vote  was 

sure  to  elect  or  partially  that  way. 

Q.  And  that  is  why  you  concluded  not  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  until 
you  knew  or  believed  that  you  knew  that  your  vote  would  assist  in  hisj 
election;  is  that  a  fact?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  had  understood  from  hearsay 
that  Mr.  Lorimer’s  chances  were  good  to  be  elected  several  days  pre¬ 
vious  to - 

Q.  Why  didn't  you  vote  for  him  when  you  understood  from  hearsay 
that  his  election  was  somewhat  assured? — A.  I  had  no  chance. 

Q.  Me  was  a  candidate  was  he  not?— A.  Well,  he  had  a  few  votes; 

three  or  four,  something  like  that. 

Q.  He  had  been  getting  a  vote,  one  or  more  votes  in  the  joint  assem-j 
bly  ever  since  the  13th  of  May,  hadn’t  he?— A.  Presumably. 

Q.  And  at  no  time  had  you  cast  one  of  those  votes  for  him? —  Aj 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Until  the  26th  of  May?— A.  Until  the  26th  of  May. 

Q.  Then,  when  it  came  along  the  26th  of  May  you  went  into  the 
general  assembly,  the  joint  session  of  the  general  assembly,  and  ascer¬ 
tained  that  that  was  the  day  that  your  vote  would  assist  in  his 
election? — A.  That  is  what  I  inferred.  ! 

Q.  From  whom  did  you  infer  that? — A.  It  was  general  talk  tlia , 
thev  were  going  to  elect  Lorimer  that  day. 

Q.  Did  you  inquire  or  make  any  investigation  as  to  whether  or  not 
he  had  enough  votes  to  elect  him  before  you  cast  your  vote? — A.  I 
did  not. 

Q.  You  took  it  for  granted.— A.  I  took  it  for  granted. 

Q.  You  were  willing,  although  your  name  was  one  of  the  first  or 
the  roll  called  in  the  house?— A.  Mine  was  the  twenty-fifth  or  twenty- 
sixth  name. 

Q.  In  the  house? — A.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  house. 

Q.  How  many  members  did  the  house  consist  of  ? — A.  153  if  the} 
were  all  there. 

Q.  You  were  willing  without  inquiring  as  to  the  number  of  votesj 
that  Mr.  Lorimer  had  to  take  your  chances  and  cast  your  vote  under 
the  conditions  you  have  stated;  is  that  right? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Clark,  you  never  had  any  talk  directly  or  indirect!} 
with  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  with  reference  "to  voting  for  William  Lori 
mer? — A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  You  never  had  any  talk  with  any  member  of  the  legislature  n 
either  house,  the  senate  or  house  of  representatives,  with  reference  t< 
your  vote,  did  you? — A.  Not  that  I  remember  of. 

Q.  When,  after  the  adjournment,  did  you  meet  Mr.  Browne? — A 
What  is  that? 

Q.  When,  after  the  adjournment  of  the  joint  assembly,  did  yoi 
meet  Mr.  Browne? — A.  I  don’t  know  positively  that  I  met  Mi 
Browne  again  until  the  called  session  of  the  legislature. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  you  have  any  recollection  at  all  of  hav 
ing  met  Mr.  Browne  in  the  city  of  St.  Louis  after  the  adjournmen 
of  the  legislature? — A.  Sir? 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  having  met  Mr.  Browne  in  St 
Louis  after  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature  ? — A.  1  did  not  mee 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  353 

[r.  Bi*owne  in  St.  Louis  in  December,  1908,  when  he  was  a  candidate 
)r  minority  leader. 

Q.  I  said  since  the  adjournment  of  the  joint  assembly. — A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  At  no  time? — A.  I  have  not  met  Mr.  Browne  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Have  you  met  Mr.  Browne  anywhere  else? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  met 
im  in  Springfield. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  did  you  meet  him  at  any  time  during  the  month 
£  June,  1909? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  At  any  place? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Or  during  the  month  of  July  at  any  place? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Or  during  the  month  of  August  at  any  place?— A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Very  well.  Now,  Mr.  Clark,  did  you  meet  Mr.  Robert  E.  Wil- 
)n  ? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  In  the  city  of  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes;  I  did. 

Q.  On  what  occasion? — A.  Some  time  in  the  month  of  June  or 
uly;  I  forgot  which. 

Q.  It  was  on  the  occasion,  was  it  not,  that  Mr.  Shephard,  Mr.  Link, 
L.  Luke,  and  others  were  in  the  Southern  Hotel? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  if  they  did  fix  that  date  as  July  21 — or  I  mean  July  15, 
Q09 — would  you  say  that  was  about  the  correct  time? — A.  I  would 

ot. 

Q.  No,  sir? — A.  I  would  not  say. 

Q.  You  say  you  would  not.  You  would  not  say  it  was,  and  you. 
ould  not  say  it  was  not? — A.  I  would  not  say  it  was,  and  I  would 
ot  say  it  was  not.  It  was  some  time  when  them  parties  were  there ; 
was  one  of  that  number. 

Q.  You  went  to  St.  Louis,  did  you,  for  the  purpose  of  meeting 
lr.  Wilson? — A.  At  his  request. 

Q.  How  was  that  request  imparted  to  you,  sir? — A.  Either  by  let- 
>r  or  telegram,  I  do  not  recollect  which. 

Q.  Have  you  that  letter  or  telegram  ? — A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  it? — A.  I  could  not  say,  as  I  do  not  pre- 
irve  my  letters  or  telegrams. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  this  committee  what  was  in  that  letter  or  tele¬ 
ram? — A.  It  was  along  the  lines,  he  would  be  glad  to  meet  me  at 
le  Southern  Hotel  in  St.  Louis,  giving  date  and  day. 

Q.  Did  he  say  what  for? — A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  comply  with  that  request? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  did  you  meet  him  at  St.  Louis? — A.  I  did. 

0.  Where? — A.  At  the  Southern  Hotel.  ' 

Q.  Just  tell  the  committee  what  transpired;  you  went  to  the 
otel  first,  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  the  clerk  at  the  desk? — A.  Not  that  I  recollect  of. 
Q.  How  did  you  ascertain  where  his  room  was? — A.  I  met  him 
i  the  lobby. 

Q.  Yes.  Was  anybody  with  him  when  you  met  him? — A.  There 
ras  not. 

Q.  Did  you  from  there  go  up  to  his  room? — A.  I  went  to  his 

oom. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  or  second  time  that  you  had  met  Mr.  Wilson 
a  St.  Louis? — A.  That  was  the  first  time  that  year. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  You  did  not  meet  him  prior  to  that  time? — A.  No, 
ir;  and  the  only  time. 

70024°— S.  Rep.  042,  61-3 


23 


354  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Did  you  receive  a  request  from  any  other  member  of  the  legis¬ 
lature  to  meet  you  at  St.  Louis  after  the  adjournment  of  the  joint 
assembly  and  prior  to  the  time  you  met  Mr.  Wilson  in  July  at  St. 
Louis? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  go  to  St.  Louis  to  meet  any  other  member  of  the 
legislature? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  a  request,  either  oral  or  in  writing,  from  any 
other  member  of  the  legislature  during  the  time  you  haAe  just 
indicated  at  any  other  place  than  St.  Louis? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Clark,  when  you  went  to  the  Southern  Hotel,  and 
met  Mr.  Wilson,  you  went  up  to  his  room,  I  understood  you  to-day  ?— 
.A  Yes 

Q.  When  you  went  to  his  room,  who  did  you  meet  ?—  A.  I  do  not 
remember  wThether  there  was  anybody  in  the  room  just  when  we 
went  in  or  not,  but  I  do  remember  there  were  several  in  the  room 

on  or  about  that  time.  . 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  Were  you  the  first  one  to  come  m  with  Mr.  Wilson, 

or  were  there  others  there  when  you  got  there?  A.  I  don  t  lemember 
whether  there  was  any  other  person  in  the  room  when  I  got  there 


or  not.  .  o  a  ~\ht 

Q.  What  transpired  while  you  were  m  the  room?— A.  We  sat 

there  and  talked.  .  _  .  ,  ,.  ,,  ,  ., 

Q.  Yes,  sir.— A.  Several  of  us.  I  did  not  stay  there  but  a  little  bit. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wilson  join  in  the  conversation ?— A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  anyone  leave  the  room  while  you  were  there?— A.  I  don't 


remember. 

Q,  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  what  sort  of  a  room  it  was  ?— 
A.  It  was  a  large,  commodious  room. 

Q.  Was  there  a  room  adjoining  it?— A.  I  believe  there  was. 

Q.  What?— A.  I  could  not  say  what. 

Q.  You  never  saw  it?— A.  I  saw  it  as  I  would  see  a  room  here. 
Q.  What  did  vou  see? — A.  I  saw  an  opening. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  what  sort  of  a  room  that  was?— A.  Iso.  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  or  not  it  was  a  bathroom?— A.  I 
do  not  know  whether  it  was  a  bathroom ;  I  had  my  presumption. 

Q.  What  was  your  presumption? — A.  That  it  might  be  a  bath¬ 
room  or  lavatory. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Clark,  did  you  or  anyone  else  go  into  the  bathroom 
while  you  were  there  ? — A.  I  did  not  go  in  the  bathroom.  # 

Q.  Did  you  see  anyone  else  go  in?— A.  I  have  no  recollection  of 

seeing  anybody  else  go  into  the  bathroom. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  anyone  with  reference  to  why 

you  were  called  to  St.  Louis? — A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Did  Mr.  Wilson  tell  you  why  he  wanted  you  to  come  to  St. 

Louis  to  meet  him? — A.  We  had  a  talk  there. 

Q  No;  did  Mr.  Wilson  tell  you  why  he  wanted  you  to  come  to  St. 
Louis  to  meet  him?— A.  I  believe  he  talked  something  along  the  line 
of  giving  a  banquet. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  did  Mr.  Wilson  tell  you  why  he  had  written  you  tc 

meet  him  in  St.  Louis. — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  why  he  had  written  you  or  for  the  reason  that 

he  had  written  you  to  come  to  St.  Louis  to  meet  him?  A.  I  do  not 


remember  that  I  did. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  355 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Clark,  you  remember  what  is  now  referred  to  as  the 
White  exposure”  or  confession;  do  you  remember  that? — A.  Yes, 

ir. 

Q.  Shortly  after  that  did  you  have  a  communication  with  Becke- 
lever  over  the  long-distance  telephone? — A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Did  you,  pursuant  or  after  that  talk,  meet  him  at  any  place? — 
l.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? — A.  No;  not  after  that. 

Q.  Well,  was  not  an  appointment  made  with  you  or  by  you  to 
leet  him  at  Centralia.  over  the  telephone? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  him  at  Centralia? — A.  I  did.  He  asked  me  to 
leet  him  at  Carlyle. 

Q.  Tes,  sir. — A.  I  told  him  I  could  not;  that  I  had  business  in 
entraiia,  and  said  I  would  be  going  to  Centralia. 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  fact,  is  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  meet  him  at  Centralia  ? — A.  He  got  on  the  train 
t  Sandoval  and  we  went  together  to  Centralia. 

Q.  What  business  did  you  have  at  Centralia  that  next  day? — A. 
vrell,  I  went  down  to  see  a  friend  of  mine. 

Q.  Who  was  it? — A.  Joe  Diamond  we  call  him. 

Q.  You  called  him? — A.  A  saloon  keeper. 

Q.  That  is  who  you  went  down  to  see? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  isn’t  it  a  fact  in  that  telegraphic  meeting  the  place  was 
xed  at  Centralia,  because  Magnon’s  boy  or  Mackdam’s  boy  was  to 
3  buried  in  Centralia  that  day;  wasn’t  that  the  fact?— A.  Mr. 
eckemeyer  told  me  he  was  going  to  Centralia  to  a  funeral. 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  Over  the  phone. 

Q.  And  he  told  you  whose  funeral,  did  he  not?— A.  I  presume 
lat  he  did,  but  I  do  not  recollect  that. 

Q.  He  told  you  that  he  was  going  to  Centralia  to  this  funeral?— 

.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  you  told  him  you  had  business  in  Centralia,  did 
3u  ? — A.  I  told  him  I  was  going  to  Centralia ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  met  Beckemeyer.  What  did  Beckemeyer  want  you — want 
*  see  you  about?— A.  He  asked  me  if  I  saw  him  at  St.  Louis  at  the 
outhern  Hotel. 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  I  told  him  that  I  did  not. 

Q.  What  else  ? — A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  him  in  substance  in  that  conversation  that  all 
ie  hoys  had  to  do  was  to  be  stiff  and  they  would  get  out  of  it  all 
ght? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Or  anything  to  that  effect? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  him,  “  You  have  got  your  one  thousand,  and  I 
we  got  my  thousand,  but  there  is  no  way  of  anyone  proving  it?  ” — 

.  I  never  said  it. 

Q.  Very  well,  sir;  you  have  answered  it.  Did  you  say  to  him,  “  I 
>t  my  thousand;  it  is  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  as  you  got  yours; 
id  if  the  boys  will  only  keep  a  stiff  back,  they  never  will  be  able  to 
rove  anything,”  or  words  to  that  effect? — A.  I  never  said  it. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  Springfield,  after  your  talk — when  did  you 
)  to  Springfield  after  your  talk  with  Joe  Clark — with  Beckeinever 
Centralia?— A.  Well - 

Q.  Didn’t  you  go  a  day  or  two  afterwards? — A.  A  few  days  after- 

ards. 


H56  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Didn’t  you  go  in  response  to  a  message  that  you  received  from 
Wilson?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Wilson  there? — A.  1  did. 

Q.  Did  vou  meet  Mr.  Wilson?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  That  is,  Robert  E.  Wilson?— A.  Robert  E  Wilson. 

Q.  The  same  Mr.  Wilson  who  wrote  you  the  letter  to  meet  him  at 

St.  Louis?— A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  Didn’t  you  have  a  talk  with  Robert  E.  W llson  at  Springfield  .— 

A.  About  three  minutes. 

Q.  Did  you  go  out  then  to  see  Morns?— -A.  l  aid. 

Q.  Morris  was  a  Democratic  member  of  the  legislatuie.  A.  les, 

O.  Did  vou  see  Beckemeyer  there  that  day  that  you  saw  Wilson?— 
A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  At  no  time?—  A.  At  no  time. 

Q.  You  were  in  an  automobile,  weren  t  you?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  went  out  to  Morris’s  place  in  an  automobile  ?— A.  1  did 
The  boy  at  the  hotel  had  an  automobile  and  asked  me  it  1  did  not 
want  to  take  a  ride.  T  got  in  it  and  we  rode  up  around  the  park,  and 
I  told  him  I  wanted  to  be  let  off  at— when  we  come  back  to  town— at 
the  Derrick  Building,  where  Mr.  Morris’s  place  was.  He  is  secretary 

of  the  United  Mine  Workers.  .  . 

O  You  went  out  to  see  Morris?— A.  I  went  up  m  his  room. 

0  Yes  sir.  Now.  didn’t  you  on  that  occasion  say  to  Beckemeyer. 
on  That  occasion,  in  substance,  that  you  were  going  out  to  Morris  to 
stiffen  the  boys  up?— A.  I  didn’t  see  Beckemeyer.  . 

Q.  And  did  you  say  that  to  Mr.  Wilson,  or  anything  m  substance 

to  that  effect?— A.  I  did  not.  ,  ,  .  , 

O  Did  Mr.  Wilson  say  anything  to  you  in  reference  to  why  he 
was  down  in  Springfield  on  that  day  ?— A.  He  never  mentioned  why 
he  was  there,  only  said  lie  was  on  his  v  ay  to  Peona. 

O.  And  vou  were  not  concerned? — A.  I  was  not  concerned. 

O  Ynd  you  were  not  concerned  in  the  entire  disclosure  in  any 
way ' ?— A.  I  do  not  know.  I  told  Mr.  Wilson  about  Mr.  White  and 

Mr.  Tierney  being  at  my  town.  .  .  .  „ 

O.  Anythin**  else? — A.  His  answer  was:  There  is  nothing  to  it. 
O  That  is  all.  is  it? — A.  That  was  about  all  he  said  that  I  recollect. 
O.  Any  further  discussion  on  the  subject  at  all?— A.  No  further 

discussion.  ... ,  .  .  „ 

O  You  did  not  meet  him  or  know— you  did  not  know  he  was  going 

to  be  there?— A.  I  did  not  know  that  he  was  going  to  be  there.  1  was 

eating  breakfast  at  the  hotel.  ,  . 

O.  You  have  answered  you  did  not  know  he  was  going  to  be  there. 

Now  Mr.  Clark,  did  anyone  else  who  was  in  that  room  m  St.  Loin? 
on  the  15th  day  of  July  ask  you  or  tell  you  why  if  they  had  beer 
summoned  there  by  Mr.  Wilson  ? — A.  They  did  not. 

Q.  And  did  you  inquire? — A.  I  did  not.  9  A 

Q.  Did  Wilson  say  anything  why  others  had  not  come  down  .  A 

He  did  not  to  me.  i  j  u 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  or  in  your  presence  say  that  Browne  had  beei 

attacked  with  ptomaine  poisoning  and  had  been  unable  to  come .  A 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  he  did  not  so  state  ?— A.  I  will  not  say  that  h< 
did  not  say  that,  but  I  do  not  recollect  it. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  357 

Q.  After  you  left  St.  Louis  and  went  home,  did  you  get  a  letter 
from  Browne? — A.  Xo,  sir;  not  that  I  recollect  of. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  get  a  letter  from  Browne,  in  which  he  said  to  you 
that  he  was  sorry  that  he  could  not  meet  you  at  St.  Louis,  and  that  he 
had  been  taken  sick  and  was  unable  to  come  by  reason  of  an  attack  of 
ptomaine  poisoning? — A.  I  might  have  got  one;  I  don’t  recollect  it 
now. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  you  did  not  get  one  ? — A.  I  will  not  say  that  I 
did  not  get  one ;  I  might  have  gotten  one. 

Q.  Did  you  inquire  after  Browne  when  you  saw  Wilson? — A.  Xot 
that  I  recollect  of. 

Q.  You  heard  no  talk  or  discussion  among  the  members  of  the  joint 
assembly  or  the  members  of  the  house  with  reference  to  the  election  of 
Mr.  Lori  in  er.  did  you,  until  a  day  or  two — until  the  day  of  or  a  day  or 
two  prior  to  May  26  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Will  you  pardon  me,  I  did  not  get  the  first  part? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  I  think  I  heard  talk  possibly  a  week  before  that ;  a  week  before. 

Q.  But  you  never  engaged  in  any  discussion  with  anyone  on  that 
subject,  did  you? — A.  Xot  that  I  remember  of. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  testified  on  the  subject  a  number  of  times,  haven’t 
you  ? — A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  a  number  of  times.  I  was  before 
the  grand  jury  in  the  county  of  Cook. 

Q.  You  were  before  the  grand  jury  in  Sangamon  County,  were  you 
not? — A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Oh,  are  you  under  indictment  in  Sangamon  County  ? — A.  I  am. 
I  am  not  responsible  for  it. 

Q.  And  you  are  under  indictment  by  reason  of  some  charge  of  a 
furniture  deal,  are  you  not  ?  Is  that  right  ? — A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  You  know,  don't  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  Is  iie  indicted  generally  with - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Pemberton. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Was  it  on  the  same  deal  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Xo;  the  furniture  deal. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Pemberton  and  Clark. 

Senator  Gamble.  Well,  it  does  not  matter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  the  matter  referred  to  in  the  Ilolstlaw  con¬ 
fession. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  what  they  were  trying  to  get  a  confession 
from  Holstlaw  on.  He  was  on  the  committee  that  Mr.  Clark  was  on. 

The  Witness.  Yes. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  was  anxious  to  know;  I  recall  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  know  what  they  were  trying  to  get  a  con¬ 
fession  on. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  what  the  whole  confession  was,  except  two 
or  three  lines,  the  furniture  deal. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  committee  has  the  confession  before  them. 

Judge  IIanecy.  But  this  identifies  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  you  didn’t  receive  a  package  did  you,  in  the  hotel, 
of  any  kind? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  there? — A.  I  was  in  the  room  with  Mr, 
Wilson  and  others,  perhaps,  ten  minutes. 


S58  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  then  you  left  and  went  back  home? — A.  I  left,  went  down¬ 
stairs,  and  stayed  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  a  little  while  and  went 
home. 

Q.  Tell  the  committee,  if  you  please,  all  about  the  discussion  of  the 
banquet. — A.  We  had  wo  discussions  or  two  factions  in  our  Demo¬ 
cratic  party;  one  was  known  as  the  Browne  faction  and  the  other 
the  Tippit  faction,  numbering  25  or  26  on  the  Tippit  side  and  about 
37  on  the  Browne  side.  The  Tippit  side  gave  a  banquet  to  their 
leader  a  few  days  before  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature,  and  there 
was  some  talk  among  our  side,  the  Browne  side,  of  giving  a  banquet 
to  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  the  same  as  the  other  side  had  given,  and  it 
was  undecided  where  to  hold  that  banquet,  whether  at  Springfield  or 
Ottawa. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  the  committee  what  the  discussion  was  at 
that  meeting  with  reference  to  this  banquet?  That  is  what  I  am  ask¬ 
ing. — A.  With  reference  to  this  banquet? 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  to  tell  what  was  said  at  that  meeting  in  this 
hotel  on  July  15. — A.  Well,  Mr.  Wilson  asked  me  what  I  thought  oi 
the  banquet  and  where  it  should  be  held,  and  I  said,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  legislature  had  adjourned,  no  good  could  be  accom¬ 
plished  by  a  banquet,  and  I  for  one  was  opposed  to  a  banquet. 

Q,  That  was  the  whole  conversation  was  it? — A.  That  was  my 
version  of  it. 

Q.  Who  else  joined  in  the  banquet  discussion,  if  anyone? — A.  I  dc 
not  know. 

Q.  Did  anyone  else  join  in  the  banquet  discussion? — A.  I  do  not 
know. 

Q.  You  were  there  weren’t  you? — A.  I  was  there  while  this  con¬ 
versation  wTas  going  on  with  Air.  Wilson. 

Q.  And  it  was  between  you  and  Wilson? — A.  Mr.  Wilson  and  1 
talked  as  I  have  quoted. 

Q.  And  you  were  there  the  entire  time;  you  were,  say,  less  thar 
ten  minutes? — A.  The  entire  time  I  was  in  the  room  was  less  thar 
ten  minutes. 

Q.  When  you  came  there,  did  Mr.  Wilson  send  for  you  for  the 
purpose  of  the  discussion  of  the  banquet  with  Browne  ? — A.  I  do  nol 
know  that  he  did. 

Q.  Did  he  at  any  time  say  that  he  sent  to  you  or  for  you  at  youi 
home  town  to  come  to  St.  Louis  to  meet  him  to  arrange  for  a  banquei 
for  Browne? — A.  He  wrote  me  a  letter  to  arrange  for  a  banquet. 

Q.  Now,  tell  us  about  that  letter;  when  did  you  get  that  letter?— 
A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Was  it  before  or  after? — A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  You  do  not? — A.  No. 

Q.  Then,  the  only  object  so  far  as  you  can  tell  this  committee  al 
this  time,  of  your  meeting  Wilson  in  St.  Louis  on  the  15th  of  July 
with  the  various  Democratic  members  of  the  house,  whose  names  yoi 
have  detailed,  was  the  conversation  which  you  have  just  narrated;  k 
that  true? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  you  through,  Mr.  Austrian? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  359 
Examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  Ottawa  is  the  home  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne? — A. 
Ye s,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  is  one  of  the — was  one  of  the  supreme  court  general 
subdivisions ;  that  is,  the  supreme  court  of  this  State  used  to  meet 
here  and  at  Springfield  and  at  Mount  Yernon  at  one  time;  that  is 
>ne  of  the  three  places  where  the  supreme  court  used  to  meet? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Not  in  1908. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  no;  back  of  that,  before  it  was  consolidated 
nto  one  place. 

Q.  And  that  is  one  of  the  places  that  is  reasonably  accessible  to 
>'o  to  and  from  by  railroad,  isn’t  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is,  it  is  one  of  the  three  towns  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  there  any  place  where  the — I  will  withdraw  that — is  there 
my  place  that  is  more  accessible  for  people  in  southern  Illinois  or 
;outh-central  Illinois  to  meet  than  St.  Louis,  Mo.  ? — A.  It  is  one  of 
he  most  convenient  places  for  southern  and  south-central  Illinois 
people  to  meet,  at  St.  Louis. 

Q.  And  it  is  quite  common,  and  has  been  for  a  great  many  years, 
:or  people  in  politics  or  who  wanted  to  be  in  politics  or  think  they 
ire  in  politics  or  think  they  want  to  be  in  politics,  in  southern  or 
outh-central  Illinois  to  go  to  St.  Louis,  isn’t  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  has  been  the  case  for  a  great  many  years? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  reason  of  that  is  because  it  has  better  railroad  facilities 
‘or  going  to  and  getting  away  from  than  any  other  place? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  you  wanted  to  go  from  many  places  in  southern  or  south 
•entral  Illinois,  you  would  have  to  go  to  St.  Louis  and  there  change  to 
'O  to  the  place  you  wanted  to  go — a  great  many  places  that  is  true 
>f  ? — A.  Living  where  I  do,  I  could  not  say,  because  I  have  got  north 
md  south  and  east  and  west. 

Q.  You  live  in  Vandalia? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  the  old  state  capital  away  back  in  1837? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  the  railroad  facilities  there  are  not  very  great  in  getting — 
or  people  in  southern  Illinois  to  get  to  or  for  people  in  south  central 
llinois  to  get  from  and  to? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Wilson  say.to  you  that  he  wanted,  either  in  the  letter 
>r  at  the  time  he  met  you  in  St.  Louis — that  he  wanted  you  and  some 
itliers  to  come  together  to  consult  and  determine  whether  they  should 
pve  a  banquet  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  and  if  so,  where? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer,  did  you,  for  United  States 
Senator? — A.  I  did;  yes,  sir. 

.  Q.  You  didn’t  vote  for  him  for  any  money  or  for  any  other  con- 
ideration  except  friendship  or  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  the  dead- 
ock? — A.  For  the  purpose  of  breaking  the  deadlock.  I  would  have 
roted  for  Mr.  Shurtleff  as  quick  as  I  did  for  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  Mr.  Shurtleff  for  speaker? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  every  Democrat  in  the  House  voted  for  Mr.  Shurtleff  ex¬ 
cept  one  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Shurtleff  is  and  was  a  Republican? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Shurtleff  had  been  elected  speaker  of  the  previous 
louse  and  some  other  previous  houses,  probably  as  a  Republican, 
ladn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


3  GO  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORI  HER. 


Q,  There  were  a  great  many  factions  in  that  legislature  and  in  that 
joint  session,  were  there  not — the  one  in  which  Senator  Lorimer  was 
elected? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  wTere  two  factions,  two  main  factions,  in  the  Democratic 
party,  weren’t  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Known  as  the  Tippit  and  the  Browne  factions? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  there  were  a  number  of  factions  in  the  Republican  party, 
weren’t  they? — A.  Evidently  two,  at  least. 

Q.  Well,  weren’t  there  more;  isn’t  it  true  a  little  one  of  five  or  sis 
or  seven  that  came  from  the  northwest  part  of  Chicago,  in  which  Mr 
Ilotchler  and  Mr.  Fieldstack  and  some  others  acted  in? — A.  There 
appeared  to  be. 

Q.  And  they  acted  separately  from  any  other  faction? — A.  Yes 
sir.  * 

Q.  Then  there  was  the  Deneen  faction? — A.  The  Band  of  Hope 

Q.  That  was  what  they  called  the  Band  of  Hope? — A.  I  es,  sir. 

Q.  Then  there  was  the  Shurtleff  faction? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  there  were  some  others  that  were  not  either  Hotchlei 
and  Fieldstack  factions  that  did  not  act  generally  with  the  Deneei: 
or  Shurtleff  factions? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  were  a  great  many  different  men  voted  for  during  the 
last  few  weeks  of  the  session  prior  to  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer 
weren’t  they? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  known  as  well  as  anything  could  be  known  at  that  time 
that  it  was  not  possible  to  elect  Lawrence  Stringer,  the  Democratic 
nominee  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  It  was  a  certainty  that  the} 
could  not  elect  him. 

Q.  It  was  known  almost  from  the  beginning  there  was  not  an} 
chance  to  elect  the  Democratic  nominee,  Mr.  Stringer,  for  Senator ?- 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  known  for  some  weeks  before  the  Senator  wai 
elected  that  none  of  the  four  candidates,  Hopkins,  Foss,  Webster 
and  Mason,  could  be  elected  at  that  session? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  everybody  nearly  on  both  sides,  or  nearly  everybody 
on  both  sides,  scattered  their  votes  to  people  some  of  whom  wer 
known  and  some  had  never  been  heard  of  before  in  public? — A.  Yes 
sir. 

Q.  The  legislature  had  been  in  session  continuously  from  early  ii 
January  until  some  time  in  the  first  part  of  June,  or  up  to  the  28th?— 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  Senator  Lorimer  was  elected? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Everybody  was  practically  anxious  to  get  away  and  get  bad 
to  their  homes  or  business  or  occupation,  weren’t  they? — A.  Yes,  sii 

Q.  And  most  of  the  members  of  the  joint  assembly  were  almos: 
ready  to  vote  for  anybody  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  the  deadloe! 
and  settling  the  Senatorship,  weren't  they? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  How  is  it  possible  for  him  to  know? 
have  no  objection  to  his  stating;  but  how  is  it  possible  for  him  t< 
know  what  was  in  the  minds  of  the  other  people? 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  was  generally  talked  of. 

Mr.  Aus'  Irian.  Then  I  have  no  objection  to  him  stating  what  h 
heard. 

Judge  IIanecy.  That  is  a  fact ;  that  was  the  general  talk. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  want  that  question  passed  on,  Mr.  Chairman. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  SGI 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  suppose  the  committee  will  determine  what  they 
rill  pass  upon.  I  will  change  my  question. 

Q.  That  was  the  talk,  wasn’t  it,  generally? — A.  I  would  like  to 
lave  that  question  asked  again. 

Q.  It  was  the  general  talk  in  Springfield  for  some  considerable 
ime  before  Senator  Lorimer  was  elected,  on  the  28th  of  May,  1909, 
hat  the  members  of  the  joint  session  were  anxious  to  break  the  dead- 
ock  and  to  elect  someone  United  States  Senator — almost  anybody — 
nd  get  back  to  their  homes  and  occupation,  wasn’t  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment.  I  submit  to  the  committee  that  I 
hink  the  witness  ought  to  testify. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  may  answer. 

A.  I  can  not  say  whether — with  respect  to  their  electing  most  any- 
)odv. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Well,  any  prominent  person. — A.  I  think  a  great  many  of  the 
democrats  would  have  been  glad  to  have  voted  with  the  Republicans 
o  have  elected  Shurtleff. 

Q.  Was  there  any  general  discussion  among  Democrats  about  vot- 
ng  with  the  Republicans  to  elect  Governor  Deneen  United  States 
Senator? — A.  I  had  heard  such. 

Q.  And  there  was  a  general  discussion  among  Democrats  of  electing 
)ther  people,  other  Republicans,  other  than  Shurtleff,  or  the  then 
peaker  of  the  house,  or  Governor  Deneen,  was  there  not? — A.  I  do 
lot  know  that  I  heard  of  any  until  Mr.  Lorimer’s  name  was  promi- 
lently  mentioned. 

Q.  Mr.  Lorimer  was  not  a  candidate  in  the  early  part  of  the  session, 
)r  until  a  few  days,  or  a  short  time  before  the  28th  of  May,  was  he  ? — 
V.  I  believe  not. 

Q.  And  it  was  the  general  talk  there,  was  it,  that  Mr.  Lorimer 
.vould  not  be  a  candidate  and  did  not  want  it,  but  preferred  to  remain 
n  the  House  of  Representatives,  because  of  his  interest  in  the  water¬ 
way  or  deep  waterway? — A.  Well,  I  do  not  recollect  as  to  that. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  about  that.  I  think  you  said  you  were 
lever  paid  anything  of  any  kind  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer? — A.  I 
lever  was. 

Q.  And  you  were  never  paid  anything  after  the  election  of  Senator 
Lorimer  because  you  did  vote  for  him,  was  you? — A.  No,  sir;  l 
lever  was. 

Q»  You  never  received  any  valuable  consideration  of  any  kind 
other  to  vote  for  him  or  because  you  had  voted  for  him? — A.  No,  sir; 
nor  any  promise. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all.  Oh,  pardon  me,  there  is  another  ques- 

jtion. 

-  Q.  It  is  a  fact,  isn’t  it,  that  the  fight  between  the  two  Democratic 
parties,  the  Browne  and  Tippit  factions,  was  kept  up  continuously 
ifter  the  Browne  faction  had  succeeded  in  electing  Mr.  Browne 
leader,  the  fight  had  kept  up  all  through  the  session,  and  after¬ 
wards? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  is  a  fact  that  the  two  factions,  the  Browne  faction  and 
part — many  of  them  frequently,  and  the  Tippit  faction,  met  fre¬ 
quently  separately  and  not  together? — A.  When  they  met  they  did 
not  meet  together. 


362  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  That  is,  the  members  of  one  faction  did  not  go  to  the  caucuses 
of  the  other? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  a  fact,  is  it  not,  Mr.  Clark,  that  all  through  southern  Illi¬ 
nois  there  is  more  politics  every  day  in  the  year,  three  hundred  and 
sixty-five  days  in  the  year,  than  there  is  in  the  large  cities  in  the 
northern  part  of  the  State?— A.  Well,  I  couldn’t  answer  that,  not 
being  very  well  posted. 

Q.  Well,  politics  are  talked  and  they  are  discussed - A.  (Inter¬ 

rupting.)  That  is  a  part  of  the  living. 

Q.  That  is  true  all  through  southern  Illinois  and  south  central 

Illinois? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  You  want  this  committee  to  understand  that  in  the  letter  to 
which  you  responded  by  going  to  St.  Louis  on  the  15th  day  of  July, 
that  Wilson  wrote  you  in  regard  to  a  banquet?— A.  I  do  not  remember 
whether  I  got  a  letter  from  Wilson  to  come  to  St,  Louis  or  a  telegram. 

Q.  That  does  not  answer  the  question.  You  want  this  committee 
to  understand  that  in  the  letter  or  telegram  requesting  you  to  meet 
Wilson  in  St.  Louis  and  fix  the  Southern  Hotel  as  the  meeting  place 
that  anything  was  said  about  a  banquet? — A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Clark,  you  had  been  in  the  legislature  the  previous 

session? — A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  Had  you  been  paid  any  money  for  any  legislation  or  voting 

for  any  legislation? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that,  if  the  committee  please ;  I  do  not 
see  how  or  why  that  this  committee  is  concerned  with  what  occurrec 
at  a  previous  session  when  Mr.  Lorimer  was  not  a  candidate  anc 
was  not  elected.  This  is  not  a  committee  with  power  to  investigate 

all  matters.  .  .  n  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  connect  it  up.  I  will  bring  it  down  to  tin: 

very  transaction.  This  is  preliminary. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  your  statement? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  question  will  be  followed  by  another  questioi 

with  reference  to  this  transaction. 

Senator  Burrows.  Why  is  the  previous  question  necessary  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  put  it  another  way. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  did  you  receive  a  pay  voucher  or  a  voucher  for  com 
pensation  under  an  order  of  the  legislature  or  the  house  belonging  t 
Mr.  Richard  E.  Powers? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  much  was  that?— A.  Six  hundred;  but  I  don’t  remembei 
Q.  When  did  you  receive  it?— A.  After  the  legislature  adjourned 
Q.  In  1909? — A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  you  told  Mr.  Beckemeyer  that  that  was  on 
of  the  ways  you  had  for  covering  up  the  money  that  had  been  pal 
you  by  Mr.  Wilson  in  St.  Louis? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  Mr.  Beckemeyer  about  the  Powers  mone; 
you  had  received  under  an  order  of  the  legislature  to  be  transmitter 
6y  you  to  Mrs.  Powers,  the  widow  of  Mr.  Powers?  A.  I  have  n 
recollection  of  having  any  conversation  with  him. 

Q.  Will  you  say  you  did  not  have  such  a  conversation,  or  the  sue 
stance  of  such  a  conversation? — A.  I  will  say  that  I  have  no  recoJ 
lection  of  it. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  368 

Q.  Now,  is  it  not  a  fact  that  after  the  legislature  adjourned  you 
[*ot  seven  hundred  and  some  odd  dollars,  to  be  transmitted  through 
you  under  an  order  of  the  legislature  or  a  resolution  of  the  legisla¬ 
ture,  to  Mrs.  Powers  as  back  pay,  funeral  expenses,  etc.,  of  Mr. 
Powers,  who  was  a  member  of  the  legislature  and  while  such  died  ? — ■ 
A.  I  didn’t  get  $700. 

Q.  What  did  you  get? — A.  I  believe  somewhere  in  the  neighbor¬ 
hood  of  $600. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  it? — A.  I  paid  some  expenses  and  took 
the  balance  to  Mrs.  Powers. 

Q.  Was  the  voucher  paid  out  to  you? — A.  The  voucher  was  made 
out  to  me. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  voucher? — A.  I  took  it  home  and 
put  it  in  the  bank,  I  believe. 

Q.  In  your  account? — A.  In  my  account. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  tell  Beckemeyer,  in  discussing  with  him  the  way  to 
E*et  rid  of  or  cover  up  the  money  that  you  had  received  from  Wilson, 
that  you  used  the  Powers  money  by  depositing  that  check  and  having 
it  go  to  your  credit  and  took  to  Mrs.  Powers  the  money  that  you  had 
received  from  Wilson,  or  some  part  of  it,  or  substantially  that? — A. 
[  did  not. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  kind  occurred? — A.  Nothing  of  that  kind  oc¬ 
curred. 

Q.  Was  there  any  occasion  for  you  to  discuss  the  Powers  incident 
with  Beckemeyer  at  all? — A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Well,  you  never  did,  did  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  did  you  ever  have  a  talk  with  Mr.  White  on  this 
subject  of  your  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Not  that  I  recollect  of. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  you  did  not  have  a  talk  with  Mr.  White? — 
A  I  will  say  that  I  do  not  recollect  having  any  talk  with  him  at  all 
m  the  subject  of  Mr.  Lorimer’s  election. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  did  you  not  say  to  Mr.  White,  when  he  was  there 
with  a  man  by  the  name  of  Tierney  or  Turner — I  think  Tierney  or 
Turner  had  left — didn’t  you  say  to  Mr.  White  in  substance,  “What 
ire  they  after,  White;  are  they  trying  to  get  Lorimer?  ”  or  anything 
o  that  effect?  Yes  or  no,  please.  Did  you  have  any  such  talk? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  say,  “  Well,  I  think  they  are  about  on  the  right 
track,”  or  words  to  that  effect? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  your  talk  with  White? — A.  Mr.  White  told  me  that 
lie  had  made  a  confession  to  Governor  Deneen,  and  that  Lorimer  was 
the  man  they  were  after. 

Q.  Anything  else? — A.  Not  that  I  recollect  of. 

Q.  Now  then,  since  stating  a  few  moments  ago  that  you  did  not 
recollect  of  having  any  conversation  with  Mr.  White,  you  recall  now 
that  you  did  have  that  conversation? — A.  That  was  at  Vandal ia. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  talk  you  ever  had  with  him? — A.  I  have  talked 
with  him  since. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  you  have  talked  with  him  since? — A.  Yes,' sir. 

Q.  There  is  a  bank  account  that  you  have  at  the  bank  in  Vandalia ; 
have  you  any  safety  box? — A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Or  safety  vault? — A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  And  never  have  had,  have  you? — A.  No,  sir. 


864  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOIUMEi'L 


Q.  At  no  time? — A.  At  no  time. 

Q.  You  deposited  all  the  moneys  that  you  got  m  your  account  m 
the  bank? — A.  Not  always. 

Q.  Such  a  thing  as  a  sum  of  money  as  $500  or  $1,000  you  would 
deposit  ? — A.  I  sometimes  gave  money  to  my  wife  and  let  her  se¬ 
crete  it. 

Q.  Had  she  a  bank  account? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  }'Ou  give  her  money  as  much  as  $500  or  $1,000  to  secrete . 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  give  her  that  much? — A.  I  don  t  know  that  1  gavt 
her  that  much. 

Q.  Will  you  say  you  never  have? — A.  I  never  have. 

Q.  What  is  the  largest  amount  you  ever  gave  her  in  1908  or  1909  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  then 
are  some  things  about  a  household  of  an  individual  that  should  noi 
be  made  public,  even  though  he  has  been  a  member  of  the  legislature 

(Last  question  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  To  be  secreted  in  the  way  you  have  indicated  . 


Senator  Burrows.  He  may  state. 

A.  I  can  not. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  when  you  went  down  to  Centralia  you  say  to  mee 
Joe  Dunn,  you  attended  the  McAdam  funeral? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  With  Beckemever? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Weren’t  vou  with  Beckemeyer  ?— A.  Possibly  fifteen  minutes. 

Q.  men  you  got  down  there,  did  you  discuss  anything  about  hov 

vou  came  down? — A.  I  don’t  remember  that  I  did;  I  came  down  oi 
*  # 
the  tram. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  the  advisability  of  your  riding  on  your  pass,  a 
by  that  means  they  could  trace  whether  you  were  in  Centralia.  A 

No,  sir. 

Q.  No  discussion  about  vour  pass  at  all? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  ride  on  a  pass,  didn’t  you?— A.  I  presume  I  did. 
Senator  Heyburn.  Did  you  receive  any  money  from  Mr.  Wilson  a 
any  time  for  any  purpose,  at  any. place,  during  the  year  1909?  A. 
did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  any  money  from  Mr.  Brown  at  any  place  or  a 

any  time  for  any  purpose? — A.  I  did  not. 

Senator  Johnston.  What  time  did  you  receive  this  money  tor  Mi 
Powers? — A.  I  think  it  was  some  time  in  June. 

Q.  In  June? — A.  Yres,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  were  you  in  St.  Louis?— A.  I  don’t  remember,  Jul 
or  June;  I  don’t  remember;  July  I  think. 

Q.  Before  you  went  to  St.  Louis  did  you  receive  that  money?  l)i 
you  receive  the  Powers  money  before  you  went  to  St.  Louis? — A. 
didn’t  recollect  whether  before  or  after. 

Q.  How  far  do  you  live  from  St.  Louis?— A.  Sixty-eight  miles? 
Judge  Hanecy.  The  Powers  money  was  paid  to  you  under  a  res( 
lution  of  the  legislature,  was  it  not?— A.  YYs,  sir;  I  was  chairman  c 

the  committee  to  attend  the  funeral. 

Q.  Entirely  public  and  a  part  of  the  record  of  the  proceedings  i 

the  legislature? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  lie  had  died  and  you  were  chairman  of  the  committee  and  ha 
charge  of  his  funeral  and  burial? — A.  1  es,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  365 

Senator  Gamble.  You  stated  to  Mr.  Austrian  on  your  direct  exam- 
nation  that  no  package  was  received  by  you  or  delivered  by  Wilson 
o  vou  at  the  time  vou  met  in  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  present  with  the  other  members  of  the  legislature 
lamed,  were  you,  in  his  room?  Did  you  see  Mr.  Wilson  deliver  any 
)ackage  to  any  of  the  other  members  who  were  there  present  ? — A.  I 
lid  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  deliver  any  package,  money,  or  any  other  thing 
o  any  of  the  members  of  the  legislature  there? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  any  talk  in  your  presence  by  Wilson,  or  bv  the 
>ther  members,  of  the  legislature  there  present,  in  reference  to 
noney? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Or  the  payment  of  money? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Now,  another  question.  You  stated  at  your  home  a  few  days 
>rior  to  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer  that  you  there  made  up  your 
nind  that  you  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  whose  suggestion,  if  anyone’s,  or  with  whom  did  you  discuss 
he  subject  of  your  constituents  there,  and  they  advised  you,  or  what 
vas  the  reason  that  you  arrived  at  that  conclusion? — A.  Some  of  my 
losest  associates  are  Democrats,  whom  I  mingle  with  when  I  go 
mme,  and  they  said  on  previous  occasions:  “Why  don’t  you  fellows 
ret  together  and  elect  Shurtleff?”  That  same  question  Vas  put  to 
ne  a  week  before  Lorimer’s  election.  I  says :  “  It  seems  to  be  impos- 
ible.  They  can't  get  Republican  votes  enough  to  elect  Shurtleff.” 
Ie  didn’t  get  over  15  or  18  votes,  and  the  Democratic  votes  would 
lot  elect  him.  I  says:  “  There  is  talk  now  of  Lorimer  being  a  prom- 
nent  candidate.”  They  says:  “  You  vote  for  him;  I  would  vote  for 
dm  and  beat  Hopkins.” 

Q.  That  was  the  reason  why  vou  came  to  that  determination? — A. 
l  es,  sir. 

Q.  W  as  there  any  offer  of  money,  or  suggestion  of  money,  or  anv- 
hing  of  value  in  case  you  would  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer,  at  this 
ime  to  which  I  refer,  when  these  conversations  were  had  at  your 
lome? — A.  There  was  not. 

Q.  You  say  nothing  of  value - A.  (Interrupting.)  Nothing  of 

alue. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  nothing  was  ever  paid  you  as  a  consideration  for 
our  vote? — A.  That  is  so. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  You  were  not  ashamed  of  the  fact  that  you  had  concluded  to 
ote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  Not  when  it 
v7as  impossible  to  elect  a  Democrat. 

Q.  Then  when  you  made  up  your  mind  a  week  or  ten  days  before 
ou  went  home,  on  Friday  before  you  went  home,  and  heard  these 
liscussions  among  your  constituents,  you  did  not  disclose  that  to 
nyone,  did  you? — A.  I  don’t  know  that  I  did. 

Q.  Didn’t  Browne  come  around  with  a  red  book,  to  see  you,  with 
he  names  of  the  members — the  Democratic  members  of  the  state 
egislature — who  were  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  He  never 

lid. 

Q.  He  never  showed  it  to  you? — A.  No,  sir;  I  never  saw  it  and 
lever  heard  of  it  before. 


366  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Browne  didn’t  ask  you  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  He  never 

did.  .  ,  , 

Q.  He  was  not  interested  apparently  m  whether  or  not  you  were 

going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  I  don’t  know  whether  he  was  or 


Q.  He  did  not,  in  checking  up  the  members  to  ascertain  whether  or 
not  they  were  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  come  near  you? — A.  I  don’t 
know  whether  he  checked  up  the  members  or  not, 

Q.  He  didn’t  come  near  you,  you  know  that? — A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  No  other  Democratic  members  of  the  house  came  near  you  ? — -A. 
They  did  not. 

Q.  No  Republican  member  of  the  house  came  near  you  : — A.  They 
did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  there  were  a  number  flitting  from  one  to  another  to 
ascertain  how  they  were  going  to  vote  and  whether  or  not  they  would 
not  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  I  might  have  seen  men  flitting  at  the 
time,  but  I  had  no  idea  what  their  mission  was. 

Q.  They  passed  Joe  Clark  by?— A.  Evidently,  according  to  your 

assertion. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you,  did  they  pass  Joe  Clark  by? — A.  They  must 


Q.  No  one  at  any  time  asked  you  whether  you  would  vote  for  Mr. 
Lorimer,  and  that  subject  was  ‘never  discussed  with  you,  and  you 
never  told  anyone  that  you  would  or  would  not  vote  for  William 
Lorimer? — A.  It  wTas  never  discussed  with  me,  except  at  home  with 

my  own  people.  . 

Q.  And  you  didn’t  tell  them  you  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ?— 


A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  didn’t  tell  Browne  you  would? — A.  Browne  never  asked 

me.  .  . 

Q.  You  didn’t  tell  any  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Ao,  sir. 

Q.  Was  anyone,  so  far  as  you  know,  surprised  when  Joe  Clark 
voted  for  William  Lorimer  on  the  26th  day  of  May,  sir?— A.  What 

is  that?  .  T  ™  i 

Q  Was  anyone,  so  far  as  you  know,  surprised  when  Joe  Clark 

voted  for  William  Lorimer  on  the  26th  day  of  May  ?— A.  I  may  not 


be  a  judge  of  surprises. 

Q.  Were  there  any  surprise  announced  by  what  took  place — more 
applause — when  you  voted  for  him? — A.  I  think  there  was  no  more 
applause  when  I  voted  than  when  anyone  else  voted. 

Q.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  solicitation  for  votes  for  United 
States  Senator  around  there,  was  there  not? — A.  Not  that  I  know  of; 
nobody  solicited  me. 

Q.  Where  is  your  seat  with  reference  to  Brownes  seat?— A.  It 

was  about  three  seats  from  him. 

Q.  Where? — A.  I  was  within  three  seats  of  him. 

Q.  Back,  or  in  front,  or  to  one  side,  or  where? — A.  I  was  in  front 

and  to  the  left  of  him.  .  . 

Q.  About  how  many  feet,  10  or  15  or  12?— A.  It  might  have  been 

15  feet. 

'  Q.  During  all  of  that,  Mr.  Clark,  there  was  quite  a  good  deal  of 
excitement  on  that  26th  of  May  before  that?— A.  There  was  while 
the  vote  was  being  taken. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  367 

Q.  Was  there  not  any  excitement  before? — A.  None  that  I  recol- 
ct  of  particularly. 

Q.  There  is  always  more  or  less  excitement  in  an  assembly,  going 
’pm  one  place  to  another,  asking  how  you  are  going  to  vote,  and 
lings  of  that  sort. — A.  Not  that  I  recollect  of. 

Q.  There  was  no  solicitation  of  your  vote  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel 
le  night  before? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  No  caucus  had  in  your  presence? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  at  Springfield  ?— A.  The  St.  Nicholas  Hotel. 
Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Paynter.  Did  anybody  about  Springfield  have  the  repu- 
ition  about  selling  members  of  the  legislature  when  the  members 
in’t  know  anything  about  it — any  such  talk  occur  there?— A.  Not 
iat  I  know  of. 

Q.  I  have  heard  it  said  sometimes  that  there  are  people  who  sell 
ongressmen  and  Senators  and  members  of  the  legislature  without 
leir  knowing  about  it. — A.  I  never  heard  anything. 

Q.  I  don’t  know  Mr.  Wilson  at  all,  but  assuming  that  Mr.  Wilson 
a  wealthy  man  or  that  this  money  had  been  given  to  him,  and  he 
anted  to  make  a  show  of  distributing  it,  would  he  invite  you  down 

lere  and  talk  to  you  about  something  else  and  let  you  go  away  ? _ A. 

don’t  know. 

Q.  ou  don’t  know  whether  the  banker  who  was  here  vesterday 
mid  have  been  treated  that  way  or  not? — A.  I  don’t  know/ 

Senator  Paynter.  I  don’t  know ;  I  was  speculating  a  little. 

By  J udge  Hanecy  : 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson  was  a  reputable  member  of  the  legislature? _ A. 

es.  sir ;  and  apparently  a  perfect  gentleman. 

Q.  He  was  a  Democrat  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  been  elected  more  than  once,  had  he? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that 
as  his  second  session,  I  think. 

Q.  This  is  the  same  Wilson  who  had  been  nominated  by  the  direct 
dmaries  in  his  own  district? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  on  the  15th  of  last  month? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Frazier.  Did  you  state  what  business  you  were  engaged 
• — A.  Well,  I  am  police  magistrate  in  my  own  city  and  I  have  been 
the  lumber  business  for  several  years. 

Q-  Did  Mr.  Wilson  make  any  explanation  to  you  when  you  met 
m  in  St.  Louis  on  the  15th  of  July  in  response  to  his  letter  or  tele- 
•am,  as  to  why  he  wanted  you  to  meet  him  there?— A.  Only  in  ref¬ 
ence  to  this  banquet ;  he  wanted  to  talk  it  over  with  me. 

Q.  Did  he  say  that  was  the  reason  he  had  written  you  to  come  to 
;.  Louis? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  gave  an  explanation  of  that  as  a  reason  why  he  wanted  you 
meet  him  there  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Wilson  take  any  other  members  of  the  legisla- 

re  who  were  there  in  his  room  on  that  day  into  the  bathroom? _ A. 

did  not,  that  I  recollect  of. 

Q.  You  didn’t  go  in  there? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  more  question. 

Q-  Mr.  Clark,  when  you  were  first  asked  if  Wilson  told  you  why  he 
id  written  you  or  telegraphed  you  to  some  to  St.  Louis,  did  you  or 


368  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  L0R1MER. 


did  you  not  say  that  he  answered  for  the  purpose  of  talking  o\  ei  the 

banquet  for  Browne  ? 

(Question  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

Senator  Burroavs.  Let  the  Avitness  ansAAer. 

A.  Well.  I  had  a  letter  and  Ave  had  some  talk  m  Springfield  about 
the  time  of  the  adjournment  with  reference  to  this  banquet,  and  that 
banquet  was  talked  about  at  that  time  at  that  meeting  that  day  I 
don’t  know  I  don't  recollect  whether  the  question  Avas  asked,  whether 
the  question  was  made  to  anyone  that  that  was  the  purpose  of  the 
meet  in  o’  but  I  presumed  that  it  Avas.  It  was  the  understanding  at 
Springfield  that  we  would  meet  after  the  session  and  determine  on  a 

place  and  fix  the  date.  i  A 

O  Did  you  not  testify  on  direct  examination  that  you  had  no 

idea*  what  Wilson  asked  you  to  come  for,  he  didn’t  tell  you,  and  you 
didn’t  ask.  but  that  during  the  course  of  the  interview  you  discussed 

something  about  a  banquet?— A.  Yes,  sir 

q  Was  not  that  your  testimony? — A.  Ye  discussed  something 

Q  Didn’t  you  sav  you  didn’t  ask  Wilson  why  lie  sent  for  a  on 
alul  that  he  didn’t  tell  you  why  he  sent  for  you*— A.  I  didn  t  ask 
because  I  had  already  known  that  we  would  meet  at  some  time. 

Q  He  didn’t  tell  you  why  he  had  sent  for  you,  did  he.  A.  J 
don’t  know  whether  he  brought  that  out  in  his  conversation  or  not. 
Senator  Burroavs.  Will  counsel  AATant  this  witness  again  * 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  Mr.  Chairman;  I  am  through  with  him. 
Senator  Burrows.  You  will  remain,  Mr.  Clark,  until  you  are  dis 

charged  by  the  committee.  .  _  ,  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  not  call  him  unless  they  put  in  some  evi 

dence  that  will  attack  his  testimony.  .  ...  ,  ,  ,  , 

Mi-.  Austrian.  I  will  say  to  you  Ave  aviII,  but  it  will  not  be  to-day 


j  yx.  E.  W.  Wayman,  called  as  a  Avitness  herein,  having  beei 
first  duly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  testified  as  folloAA^s : 

Direct  examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name? — A.  J.  M.  E.  W.  Wayman. 

Q*  yyhat  position  do  you  occupy?— A.  State's  attorney  at  C  oo. 

^  Q.  How  long  have  you  been  state’s  attorney  ? — A.  Since  Decembe 


Q.  When  were  you  admitted  to  the  bar?— A.  In  1800 

Q.  Since  that  time  have  you  been  engaged  m  the  practice  or  laAV  . 

A.  Continuously.  .  v 

O.  In  the  city  of  Chicago ? — A.  res,  sir. 

O  I  direct  your  attention  to  the  date  on  or  about  the  4th  day  c 
May  1000.  Was  there  a  special  grand  jury  convened  in  Coo 
County,  Ill.? _ A.  It  was  convened  on  the  2d  of  May,  and  was  i 

O  During  the  course  of  conducting  the  grand  ]ury  did  you  taJ 
with  certain  witnesses  there  appearing  before  the  grand  jury,  who: 
names  I  will  now  mention.  Michael  Link.  A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  Charles  A.  White? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  H.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Henry  A.  Shephard?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  will  answer  yes  that 
is,  although  I  have  no  acquaintance  outside  of  examining  linn  beto 
the  grand  jury. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  369 

Q.  The  talks  yon  had  with  all  of  them  except  White  was  the  same 
vas  it  not,  the  talks  yon  had  with  them  at  the  time  or  abont  the 
ime  they  were  examined  ? — A.  All  except  Shephard ;  I  talked  outside 
>f  the  jury  room  with  Shepherd,  and  went  in  the  jury  room  when  I 
xamined  him  before  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  Mr.  Wayman,  during  the  course  of  your  investigation,  was  Mr. 
Ank  called  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  With  reference  to  what  matter? — A.  With  reference  to  the  in¬ 
stigation  then  being  carried  on  before  the  grand  jury  involving 
:orruption  generally  in  the  legislature,  and  the  specific  charge  of  the 
)ribery  of  Charles  A.  White  by  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  in  Chicago, 
]ook  County. 

Q.  Mr.  Wayman,  was  Mr.  Link  interrogated  with  reference  to 
vhether  or  not  he  had  been  in  St.  Louis  during  the  month  of  July, 
909? — A.  He  was. 

Q.  Did  he  respond  to  that  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  respond  to  that  interrogation? — A.  Yes,  sir;  he  did. 

Q.  What  did  he  state  ? — A.  He  said  he  hadn’t  been  there. 

Senator  Frazier.  He  admitted  he  swore  falsely  about  it,  why  go 
nto  it? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  would  object  to  proof  of  this  kind,  but  I  pre- 
umed  the  committee  didn’t  want  me  to  do  it,  because  they  let  every- 
hing  in. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  abandon  that. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what,  if  any,  action  was  taken  with  reference 
o  Mr.  Link,  with  reference  to  placing  him  in  the  custody  of  an 
>fficer? — A.  On  either  May  4,  which  was  Thursday,  I  think — Thurs- 
lay  May  5,  he  was  placed  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  at  12.30  o’clock 
loon. 

Q.  Will  you  proceed  and  tell  the  committee  what  transpired  there- 
ifter,  with  reference  to  his  being  in  the  custody  of  an  officer? — A. 
Ie  was  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  until  the  following  evening  at 
► — he  was  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  until  the  following  Saturday 
norning. 

Q.  By  being  in  the  custody  of  an  officer,  will  you  state  to  the  com- 
nittee  what  that  is? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  object  to  that.  The  state’s  attorney  didn’t 
^o  around  with  him,  and  he  can’t  tell  what  somebody  else  did. 

Q.  State  what,  if  any,  directions  were  given  with  reference  to  that 
custody? — A.  No  directions  given  by  me  at  all. 

Q.  By  whom  were  they  given? — A.  The  foreman  of  the  grand 
ury  followed  my  advice  and  instructions  and  placed  Mr.  Link  in 
he  custody  of  an  officer  after  the  discussion  in  the  grand  jury  room, 
except  one  or  two  to  be  followed,  they  were  placed  in  the  custody  of 
in  officer  to  be  kept  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  until  indict- 
nents  could  be  prepared  by  my  office,  as  the  grand  jury  at  that  time 
vere  ready  to  vote  or  I  would  have  to  proceed  and  file  a  complaint 
n  court,  and  take  him  into  custody  and  put  him  in  jail.  We  dis¬ 
cussed  both,  and  I  advised  the  former  and  that  was  agreed  upon  by 
he  grand  jury,  and  Mr.  Link  was  called  before  the  grand  jury  and 
vas  instructed  by  the  foreman  that  he  was  placed  in  the  custody  of 
in  officer  to  be  returned  at  2  o’clock. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Link  return? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 24 


370  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Did  you  have  any  communication  with  him? — A.  Yes,  sir;  T 
had  two  communications  with  him  after  he  testified  before  the  grand 
jury  the  first  time. 

Q.  With  reference  to  his  custody? — A.  I  had  no  conversation  with 
reference  to  his  custody,  after  Saturday,  when  Mr.  Link  was  no  longer 
in  custody,  and  the  indictment  had  been  nollied  against  him  on  Sat¬ 
urday  morning,  when  an  officer  accompanied  him  to  his  home  at 
Mitchell. 

Q.  What  talk  or  discussion  did  you  have  with  him,  personally,  as 
to  his  being  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  while  in  the  city  of  Chicago  ? — 
A.  I  had  no  discussion  at  all  Friday  evening  at  that  time,  but  Satur¬ 
day,  I  did  as  to  what  would  be  done  with  reference  to  the  case  in 
which  an  indictment  had  been  returned.  After  nolle  prossing  the 
case  Saturday  morning,  it  was  again  discussed,  and  Mr.  Link  wanted 
an  officer  to  go  with  him  to  the  train,  and  then  he  wanted  an  officer  to 
go  with  him  clear  home,  and  after  discussing  that  between  us,  we 
agreed  that  would  be  wise,  and  the  reasons  there  stated  between  us, 
was  that  we  didn’t  want  anybody  to  interview  Mr.  Link  or  talk  with 
him  upon  this  subject,  and  I  stated  that  to  Mr.  Link.  Mr.  Link  ex¬ 
pressed  himself  as  being  very  desirous  that  no  newspaper  men  was 
to  be  allowed  to  interview  him,  but  all  be  kept  away  from  him.' 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit  that  this  is  not  proper.  He  is  simply 
stating  what  Link  said,  and  while  this  witness  is  state’s  attorney,  he 
is  here  as  a  witness  simple  and  upon  the  pay  roll  as  any  other  wit- 
J10SS  is. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  did  Mr.  Link  say  ? — A.  What  I  have 
stated,  as  near  as  I  could,  not  verbatim,  but  to  put  it  in  the  first  per¬ 
son,  it  would  be,  “  I  don’t  want  the  newspaper  men  to  bother  me,  no¬ 
body  to  bother  me  until  I  am  through  with  this  thing.  I  want  to  go 
home  and  I  want  you  to  see  that  I  get  to  the  train  in  a  cab.”  I  says. 
“  I  will  see  to  that,  and  it  would  be  a  good  idea  for  the  officer  to  ac¬ 
company  vou  to  Mitchell,  and  stay  with  you  a  few  days  until  the  ex¬ 
citement  blows  over,  and  I  said  then,  if  anybody  attempts  to  ap¬ 
proach  you,  you  have  somebody  who  can  protect  you,  because  I  don't 
want  you  to  talk  with  anybody,  and  in  the  next  place,  as  Mr.  Link 
said,  if  any  violence  is  attempted,  he  would  have  somebody  at  least 
who  could  get  protection  for  him.  While  Mr.  O’Keefe  would  have 
no  jurisdiction  in  that  county,  I  thought  it  would  be  well  to  have 
him  there  with  him  for  a  while,”  and  Link  agreed  to  that,  and  said 
“All  right,  O’Keefe,  come  on,”  and  he  took  him  in  a  cab  to  the  trair 
and  went  home  with  him. 

Q.  How  long  did  O’Keefe  remain  there? — A.  That,  I  can  not 
speak  accurately,  but  I  think,  perhaps,  not  later  than  the  15th  ol 
February. 

Q.  After  Link  went  away  did  you  receive  any  message  Iron 

him? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  writing? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  produce  them? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

(Witness  here  produced  a  number  of  papers.) 

Q.  Will  you  read  them  to  the  committee,  please,  in  their  chrono 
logical  order? 

Senator  Gamble.  What  is  the  purpose? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  want  the  committee  to  know  what  this  purportec 
third  degree  is. 


INVESTIGATION"  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  371 

Senator  Gamble.  Was  there  any  evidence  given  by  Mr.  Link  that 
idicated  duress? 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  nothing  in  this  record  of  that. 

Senator  Gamble.  There  was  an  attack  by  the  witness  upon  the 

tate  attorney’s  office.  If  we  are  here  to  try  that - 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  are  not*  here  for  that  purpose,  if  you  will 
ardon  me,  but  hour  after  hour  is  spent  by  counsel  in  the  examination 
f  every  one  of  these  four  men  to  show  the  terrible  third  degree  they 
rere  put  in,  and  I  want  to  show  the  surrounding  circumstances  under 
diich  they  did  testify.  Two-thirds  of  the  examination  of  each  one 
f  those  witnesses  was  directly  upon  that  point,  and  it  is  only  fair 
3  the  state’s  attorney. 

Senator  Gamble.  It  is  all  right  if  that  is  the  purpose. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  statement  was  made  by  Senator  Heyburn  in 
eference  to  some  proceedings  by  another  committee  of  the  United 
tates  Senate. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  do  not  understand  your  reference. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  you  stated  this  committee  had  no  power  to 
ivestigate  such  proceedings.  I  mean  Senator  Gamble,  pardon  me. 
Senator  Gamble.  I  recollect;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  Senator  Gamble  said  something  upon  the 
ibject  himself. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  I  did.  I  took  the  opportunity  to  make 
tie  suggestion  that  there  was  a  special  committee  constituted  by  a 
esolution  in  the  United  States  Senate  to  investigate  the  composition 
f  the  third  degree.  I  doubt  whether,  as  this  is  not  a  federal  matter, 

:  could  apply  to  this.  That  was  purely  a  side  remark. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  will  remember  that  occurred  at  a  time  when 
e  were  talking  of  the  third-degree  methods. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  everything  that  counsel  states  is  true,  they  can 
ot  show  this  except  by  way  of  rebuttal,  and  they  have  not  yet  closed 
leir  case.  This  committee  is  precluded  from  going  into  "any  mat- 
ts  of  rebuttal,  and  I  do  not  know  why  an  exception  should  be  made 
i  this  particular  witness.  He  is  here  on  the  pay  roll,  and  will  be 
ere  in  all  probability,  and  he  can  be  called  some  other  time  as  well 
3  now  if  rebuttal  is  necessary. 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  record  teems  with  statements  made  by  wit- 
esses  of  the  outrages  and  hardships  they  had  to  undergo.  Hour 
fter  hour  was  spent  by  counsel  on  the  other  side  cross-examining 
itnesses  as  to  where  they  went  and  what  was  said  and  where  they 
ere  taken;  that  they  were  taken  to  Indiana,  Michigan,  Wisconsin, 
nd  I  think  I  ought  to  have  an  opportunity  to  put  this  evidence  in. 
Senator  Gamble.  In  regard  to  the  witness,  Link,  was  there  any 
laim  made  by  him  upon  the  witness  stand  that  any  influence  was 
laced  upon  him  by  the  district  attorney’s  office  that  caused  him  to 
;1  an  untruth. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  caused  him  to  tell  the  truth. 

Senator  Gambler.  Was  there  any  claim  by  the  witness,  Holtslaw, 
bat  he  was  coerced  into  making  wrong  statements.? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  Was  there  any  statements  made  to  the  witness, 
ihephard,  that  he  was  coerced  into  making  false  statements? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir.  ^ 


372  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Gamble.  There  has  been  an  attack  by  these  witnesses  upon 
the  state’s  attorney’s  office;  for  that  purpose  that  would  be  for  the 
committee  to  determine. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  the  committee  would  strike  out  all  the  evidence 
about  their  being  in  custody  and  the  so-called  third  degree,  I  woulc 
not  ask  to  put  in  this  evidence,  but  if  it  remains  in  the  record  I  think 
the  explanation  should  be  there,  too.  '  ! 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  are  not  investigating  the  state’s  attorney’s 

office. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  those  communications  from  Mr.  Link? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  with  reference  to  going  to  Springfield  anc 
testifying  there? 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  they  all  from  him  ? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir;  his  messages  to  me  and  my  replies. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  read  them. 


[Exhibit  1— I,  H.  F.  L.,  10/1/10.] 

On  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company  blank. 

2ocu  IX  A5  19Collect.  Phone  i  Central  6882,  Kinzie  St.,  Chicago 


Mitchell,  Ills.,  May  9th,  1910. 


John  E.  Wayman, 

States  Atty.,  Cook  County,  Chgo.: 

Madison  County  sheriff  served  a  subpoena  on  me  to  appear  before  the  Sanga 


mon  County  grand  jury  to-day.  Answer. 


M.  S.  Link. 


10.33  a.  m. 


[Exhibit  1-J,  K.  F.  L.,  10/1/10.] 
Western  Union  Telegraph  Company  blank. 


(Charge  to  state’s  atty.’s  office.) 


Chicago,  May  9,  1910. 


Mr.  M.  S.  Link,  Mitchell,  III.  .  . 

I  have  your  wire.  My  advice  is  to  go  up  to  Springfield,  arriving  there  in  tb 
morning.  "  Register  at  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  and  I  will  have  representative  o 
this  office  meet  you  there  and  confer  with  State's  Attorney  Burke.  After  h 

confers  with  Burke,  he  will  advise  you  what  to  do. 

John  E.  W.  Wayman, 

State's  Atty.,  Cook  County. 


91  C  IX  A5  47  collect. 


[Exhibit  1-J,  K.  F.  L.,  1/10/10.] 

Mitchell,  Ills.,  May  12,  1910. 


John  E.  W.  Wayman,  States  Atty. 

Burke,  of  Sangamon  County,  claims  to  have  been  here  to-day,  and  notifie 
Mrs  Link  to  have  me  appear  at  Springfield  to-morrow  morning;  5  newspape 
men  were  with  him.  He  left  no  legal  papers  or  anything.  I  want  to  knot 

whether  it  was  Mr.  Burke.  Advise  me.  ^  T 

M.  S.  Link. 


3.32  p.  m. 


[Exhibit  1-L,  K.  F.  L.,  1/10/10.] 


(Charge  to  state’s  atty.’s  office.) 


Chicago,  May  12,  1910. 


Mr.  M.  S.  Link,  Mitchell,  III. 

Mr.  Wayman  just  telephoned  me  his  message  from  you.  Don  t  go  until  yo 
hear  from*  me.  I  do  not  believe  it  was  Mr.  Burke.  If  you  get  any  service  c 
any  sort  of  paper  upon  you,  wire  me  before  going  to  Springfield,  and  I  wi 

advise  you. 


Fbank  Reid. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  373 


[Exhibit  1-M,  K.  F.  L.,  1/10/10.] 

CH.  IX.  SN  40  Collect. 

Mitchell,  III.,  May  13,  1910. 

3HN  E.  Wayman, 

State's  Attorney,  of  Cook  County: 

Have  just  been  subpoenaed  by  the  sheriff  of  Sangamon  County  to  appear  he¬ 
me  the  grand  jury  in  Springfield  instanter.  Will  be  in  Springfield  on  the 
linois  Traction,  12.40  noon.  Will  go  directly  to  Mr.  Hatch’s  office. 

M.  S.  Link. 

38  a.  m. 

The  Witness.  I  made  no  reply  to  that.  On  both  occasions  when 
t  Springfield  Mr.  Reid  met  him  there  at  Mr.  Hatch’s  office,  formerly 
:ate’s  attorney  of  Sangamon  County.  On  the  12th  of  May  I  got 
lis  letter : 

[Exhibit  1-N,  K.  F.  L.,  1/10/10.] 

(Letter  head  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  representatives.) 

Mitchell,  III.,  5/12/10. 

!on.  John  E.  W.  Wayman,  Chicago,  III. 

Dear  Mr.  Wayman  :  I  have  no  room  to  keep  Mr.  O'Keefe  at  my  home,  and  I 
romise  you  that  I  have  no  disposition  to  repudiate  in  any  manner  the  testi- 
lony  that  I  gave  before  the  Cook  County  grand  jury  on  last  Saturday,  May  7. 
I  realize  that  you  are  a  friend  of  mine  and  will  depend  on  what  you  told  me. 
And  I  shall  not  allow  myself  to  be  interviewed  by  anyone. 

Yours,  etc.,  M.  S.  Link. 

[Exhibit  l-O,  K.  F.  L.,  1/10/10.] 

(Letter  head  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  representatives.) 

Mitchell,  III.,  7/2/10. 

[r.  John  W.  Wayman,  Chicago,  III. 

Dear  Mr.  Wayman  :  Many  thanks  for  your  telegram  notifying  me  to  pay 
o  attention  to  the  subpoena  for  the  6th,  but  to  come  when  notified  by  you. 
od,  the  Supreme  Ruler,  being  my  witness,  will  be  in  Chicago  when  notified  by 
ou,  as  soon  as  the  train  can  carry  me. 

This  is  very  much  my  busy  season  of  the  year,  as  the  harvest  time  is  now  on, 
ad  you  remember  telling  me  that  once  upon  a  time  you  were  a  farmer,  so  I 
now  you  will  have  some  consideration  for  your  big  farmer  friend. 

With  kind  regards,  yours,  etc., 

M.  S.  Link. 

[Exhibit  1-Q,  K.  F.  L.,  10/1/10.] 

(Large  envelope  with  the  following  matter  on  the  upper  left-hand 
orner) : 

Forty-Sixth  General  Assembly, 

State  of  Illinois, 

House  of  Representatives, 

Clerk’s  Office. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  withdraw  my  objection;  let  them  go  in. 
Senator  Burrows.  They  will  be  admitted. 

Q.  Mr.  Wayman,  did  Mr.  Link  at  any  time  protest  or  object  to 
ou  or  anyone,  to  your  knowledge,  as  to  any  treatment  he  was 
ecorded  or  the  company  of  any  officer? — A.  No. 

Q.  I  will  put  the  statement  to  you  with  reference  to  Mr.  Becke- 
leyer? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  say  that  you  only  had  one  talk  with  Mr.  Shephard  and 
aat  was  in  the  grand-jury  room? — A.  That  is  all. 

Q.  Mr.  Wayman,  (turing  your  talks  with  Mr.  Link,  did  he  produce 
letter  which  purported  to  be  signed  by  Robert  E.  Wilson? — A. 

Tes,  sir. 


374  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Will  you  produce  it,  please? 

(Witness  produces  letter.) 

Q.  What  is  the  date  of  it? — A.  June  26,  1909. 

Q.  Will  you  state  the  conversation — I  don't  want  the  entire  con¬ 
versation,  but  just  the  conversation  with  reference  to  that  lettei 
between  you  and  Link? — A.  On  Saturday  after  the  indictment 
against  Link  w^as  nolled,  which,  I  believe,  would  be  the  7th  oi 
May,  I  had  a  talk  with  him  before  he  went  before  the  grand  jury 
in  which  he  told  me  that  he  had  received  a  letter  signed  by  Bol 
Wilson  subsequent  to  the  day  that  a  representative  from  my  office 
called  on  him  at  Mitchell.  He  said  the  letter  was  a  fake,  and  was 
dated  back  a  year  in  order  to  give  him  some  excuse  for  being  in 
St.  Louis  July  15.  I  asked  him  whether  he  would  deliver  that 
letter  to  me  and  he  said  he  would,  and  the  next  occasion  that  he  cairn 
to  Chicago  he  did  deliver  the  letter  to  me,  and  this  is  the  letter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  offer  it  in  evidence. 

Judge  Hanect.  Let  me  see  it. 

The  Witness.  That  is  the  envelope  in  which  he  handed  it  to  me 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  know  whether  the  word  “Bob”  was  writ¬ 
ten  by  Mr.  Wilson  or  not.  but  I  have  no  objection  to  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Read  it, 

(The  letter  reads  as  follows:) 

[Exhibit  1-P,  K.  F.  L.,  10/1/10.] 

(Letter  head  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  State  of  Illinois  house  of  representatives.) 

Chicago,  June  26,  1909. 

Hon.  M.  S.  Link,  Mitchell,  III. 

Dear  Mike  :  Doctor  Allison  was  speaking  to  me  in  regard  to  seeing  some  oi 
the  boys  relative  to  giving  Lee  a  banquet  in  bis  borne  town,  Ottawa.  I  expeci 
to  be  in  St.  Louis  some  time  in  the  near  future  in  connection  with  our  sub 
merged-land  committee.  As  soon  as  I  know  just  when  I  will  be  there,  wil 
wire  you  and  if  possible  would  like  to  meet  you  there.  In  the  meantime  should 
you  come  to  Chicago,  advise  me  in  advance  and  I  will  meet  you. 

With  best  wishes  to  you,  I  am,  yours,  very  truly,  Bob. 

The  Witness.  I  will  add  in  regard  to  the  conversation,  the  state¬ 
ment  made  by  Link  with  reference  to  the  letter  was  made  in  answer 
to  questions  put  to  him  by  me  on'  that  Saturday  morning. 

Q.  What  were  those  questions  ? — A.  I  asked  him  whether  or  not  he 
had  received  such  a  letter  as  Beckemeyer  had  received,  as  Beckemeyei 
had  told  me  he  had  received  such  a  letter,  and  that  is  what  brought 
the  information  from  Link. 

Q.  Did  Beckemeyer  tell  you  when  he  got  such  a  letter? — A.  He 
told  me  that  he  had  received  a  letter  subsequent  to  the  day  that 
Turner  had  called  on  him  at  Carlyle,  and  subsequent  to  the  time  he 
met  Bob  Wilson  at  Springfield,  and  that  in  the  conversation  at 
Springfield  it  was  agreed  that  some  such  letter  should  be  written  tc 
account  for  the  meeting  at  St.  Louis.  Beckemeyer  afterwards  pro¬ 
duced  that  letter,  and  I  have  got  it  at  the  office,  but  I  could  not  lay 
my  hand  on  it  this  morning.  This  was  June  26,  1909,  and  the  day 
Turner  called  on  Link  was  about  the  20th  of  April. 

Q.  What  year? — A.  1910 — this  year.  The  envelope  in  which  the 
letter  was  received  by  Link  was  not  produced,  and  I  have  not  beer 
able  to  find  out  whether  it  is  the  same  date  as  the  Beckemeyer  letter. 
This  is  the  envelope  in  which  Link  handed  it  to  me. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  375 

Q.  This  is  a  plain  envelope? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Frazier.  When  did  Mr.  Link  say  to  you  he  had  received 
his  letter? — A.  He  said  he  received  it  after  Turner  had  called  on 
dm. 

Q.  Did  he  say  he  had  received  it  after  he  had  met  Wilson  in  St. 
A)uis  on  the  15th  of  July? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  April  of  the  following  yea*  sometime? — A.  Yes,  sir;  this 

ear. 

Examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Frank  Reed  is  an  attorney  in  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  used  to  be  assistant  state’s  attorney  at  the  home  town  of 
Jr.  Hopkins? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Formerly  Senator  Hopkins? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  employed  Mr.  Reed  to  represent  you  and  your  office  in  re- 
ation  to  Mr.  Link  when  Mr.  Link  was  subpoenaed  by  the  state’s  at- 
orney  of  Sangamon  County  to  come  before  the  grand  jury  in  that 
natter? — A.  1  did;  but  Mr.  Reed  refused  to  take  pay  for  it.  I  think 
he  bar  understands  that  a  retainer  means  something  more  than 
friendship. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  money 
onsideration  with  a  retainer  in  order  that  it  should  be  a  retainer? — 
l.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  may  answer. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  did  employ  him? — A.  Yes;  put  it  your  way, 
f  you  want  to. 

Q.  To  represent  your  office? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  Springfield  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Before  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury? — A.  No;  not  that; 
lot  before  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury.  I  retained  him  to  rep¬ 
resent  me  and  go  to  Springfield'  at  that  time  and  see  Mr.  Burke,  and 
if  ter  confering  with  him,  to  advise  Mr.  Link  what  to  do,  as  I  had 
iromised  Mr.  Link  I  would. 

Q.  You  employed  Mr.  Reed  as  an  attorney  to  represent  you  and 
o  go  to  Springfield  after  Mr.  Link  had  been  subpoenaed  by  the  state’s 
ittorney  of  Sangamon  County  to  appear  before  the  Sangamon  County 
^rand  jury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  employed  Mr.  Reed  to  prevent  Mr.  Link  from  being  taken 
)efore  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury,  and  examined  there  by  the 
date’s  attorney  and  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  employ  him  for? — A.  I  employed  him  in  con¬ 
formity  with  a  promise  that  I  had  made  to  Link  that  if  he  was  sub- 
ooenaed  before  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury  that  I  would  see  to 
it  that  he  was  treated  fairly  by  Mr.  Burke.  Mr.  Link  was  very  much 
if  raid  that  he  would  get  into  an  indictment  in  Sangamon  County 
ir  get  into  some  trouble.  I  told  him  that  I  believed  that  Mr.  Burke 
would  treat  him  fairly,  and  that  if  Mr.  Burke  did  subpoena  him  that 
r  would  advise  with  him,  Mr.  Burke,  as  to  the  situation  in  Cook 
County;  that  of  course  I  did  not  want  any  conflict  in  jurisdiction; 
and  I  didn’t  want  any  row  with  Mr.  Burke  and  myself;  but  that  I 
lid  not  know  Mr.  Burke,  but  that  he  and  I  would  probably  meet  in 
i  few  days.  I  did  not  meet  with  Mr.  Burke,  and  I  had  no  opportunity 
of  conferring  with  him  when  this  matter  came  up,  so  I  sent  for  Mr. 


376  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Reed,  because  I  could  not  go  myself,  and  I  felt  that  I  ought  to  have 
Mr.  Reed  go  and  see  Mr.  Burke,  because  he  knew  Mr.  Burke,  and  he 
could  talk  to  Mr.  Burke  better  than  I  could  myself  if  I  had  gone. 

Q.  And  you  wanted  some  official  person  to  go  and  see  Mr.  Burke? — 
A.  I  wanted  him  to  go  and  see  him  and  talk  to  him,  he  who  had  been 
a  state’s  attorney,  and  he  knew  the  difficulties  of  the  office;  and  he 
could  advise  with  Mr.  Burke.  • 

Q.  Were  you  afraid  that  the  state’s  attorney,  Mr.  Burke,  of  Sanga¬ 
mon  County,  would  not  treat  Mr.  Link  fairly  when  he  was  called  as  a 
witness  before  the  grand  jury  in  that  county? — A.  I  was  totally  in 
the  dark  in  the  matter,  but  had  determined  to  play  safe,  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  my  promise  to  Mr.  Link. 

Q.  Why  did  you  think  it  was  necessary  to  employ  an  attorney  to 
go  down  there  to  Sangamon  County  when  Mr.  Link  was  subpoenaed 
as  a  witness  down  there? 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  difference  does  it  make?  If  you  are  going 
to  argue  with  reference  to  the  moving  cause  that  prompted  him  to 
send  him  down  there  and  find  out  the  operations  of  his  mind - 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  is  a  state’s  attorney.  This  state’s  attorney 
put  this  man  in  the  custody  of  an  officer  and  kept  him  there,  and 
tried  to  prevent  him  from  appearing  before  the  grand  jury  of 
another  coordinate  jurisdiction,  to  testify  in  relation  to  the  matter, 
and  he  was  under  duress  at  the  time  that  he  was  in  the  custody  of 
that  officer,  and  he  would  not  let  him  go  into  another  jurisdiction, 
coordinate  with  this  jurisdiction  here,  and  be  examined,  as  they  had 
a  right  to  examine  him  before  that  state’s  attorney,  and  that  grand 
jury,  in  relation  to  matters  that  they  would  like  to  know  about — the 
alleged  corruption  in  the  legislature  at  Springfield— where,  if  there 
was  any  corruption,  did  take  place,  that  the  jurisdiction  was  there. 

Senator  Gamble.  Suppose  that  all  be  true,  Judge,  what  help  wTould 
it  be  to  this  committee  and  what  has  it  to  do  with  the  investigation 
of  bribery  and  other  matters  connected  with  the  election  of  Senator 
Lorimer,  that  we  now  have  under  investigation  here?  If  the  state’s 
attorney  of  this  county  is  to  be  subjected  to  criticism,  or  subjected  to 
commendation,  or  if  he  is  blameworthy,  and  his  judgment  was  bad, 
why  is  this  any  place  for  it?  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  entirely  a 
collateral  matter. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  not  my  purpose.  We  have  shown  that 
the  testimony  of  Link,  Beckemeyer,  and  Holstlaw  was  given  under 
duress.  I  am  not  asking  this  committee  to  comment  or  criticise  on 
the  administration  of  Mr.  Wayman  in  his  office,  except  in  so  far  as 
the  acts  of  Mr.  Wayman  in  putting  these  witness  in  custody,  contrary 
to  law,  and  holding  them  there  contrary  to  law,  makes  his  office  sub¬ 
ject  to  criticism.  I  intend  to  show  and  I  intend  to  argue,  if  I  am 
permitted  to,  and  ask  this  honorable  committee,  and  those  who  may 
come  after  it,  in  dealing  with  this  matter,  to  show  that  the  testimony 
of  Link,  Beckemeyer,  White,  and  Holstlaw  is  not  truthful  when  they 
say  that  they  obtained  money;  and  I  expect  to  show  by  this  entire 
record  that  Link  and  Beckemeyer  testified  before  the  grand  jury 
truthfully  that  they  never  got  any  money  from  Browne  or  Wilson, 
and  after  they  did  testify  to  that,  then  they  went  back  again,  under 
duress,  and  swore  that  they  did  get  money,  just  to  get  out  of  the 
duress  that  they  were  in;  and  if  they  took  that  back  again  in  this 
jurisdiction— if  they  swore  differently  in  this  jurisdiction— before 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  377 

the  statute  of  limitations  barred  it — that  the  state’s  attorney  of  this 
county — while  he  has  no  power — that  unless  they  changed  their 
mind  he  would  have  them  indicted  for  perjury  for  the  subsequent 
statement  they  had  testified  to  the  first  time,  and  that  they  did  not 
get  any  money  from  Browne  or  Wilson.  I  ask  the  privilege  of  calling 
some  of  these  witnesses  afterwards;  I  have  asked  that  privilege  and 
I  was  given  that  privilege.  It  may  be  that  the  time  will  come  when 
they  will  tell  the  truth,  as  they  told  it  under  oath  at  the  first  session 
of  the  grand  jury,  when  they  were  there.  They  did  not  get  any 
money — they  did  not  get  any  money  from  Browne  or  Wilson. 

Senator  Paynter.  That  is  your  statement,  Judge.  Can  that  be 
enlightening  to  us?  You  are  not  sworn.  We  must  deal  with  the 
evidence  given  here. 

Senator  Frazier.  I  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  proceed  with 
the  witness  and  receive  his  testimony. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  don’t  want  to  suggest  too  much  as  to  the  tech¬ 
nical  testimony,  but  I  have  views  of  my  own,  and  in  the  order  of  the 
testimony  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a  matter  of  defense. 

Senator  Burrows.  This  is  not  a  lawsuit.  It  is  an  inquiry.  The 
committee  can  give  to  this  testimony  just  such  consideration  as  it 
thinks  it  is  entitled  to.  Bead  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Judge  Hanecy.  Before  the  grand  jury? — A.  My  promise  to  Mr. 
Link  was  at  that  time,  and  I  filled  my  promise — I  fulfilled  my  prom¬ 
ise  to  him.  In  the  first  place,  I  felt — it  was  my  personal  opinion  that 
I  should  be  represented  there  and  confer  with  Mr.  Burke  and  advise 
Mr.  Burke  as  to  whether  or  not  there  was  to  be  any  conflict  as  to 
jurisdiction  between  his  office  and  mine,  and  to  assure  Mr.  Burke 
there  was  no  desire  on  my  part  to  take  any  cases  from  him  that  prop¬ 
erly  belong  to  him,  but  that  it  was  my  purpose  to  prosecute  every 
case  that  did  come  within  my  jurisdiction.  Then,  I  wanted  to  keep 
faith  with  what  I  had  told  Mr.  Link;  that  was  the  second  ground; 
and  that  was  to  send  somebody  to  go  and  talk  to  Mr.  Burke  and  to 
advise  Mr.  Link — after  advising  with  Mr.  Burke  to  advise  Link,  and 
I  thought  that  Mr.  Reed  was  a  good  lawyer,  and  just  as - 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  did  instruct  Mr.  Link  not  to  testify  before 
the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  never  in¬ 
structed  Mr.  Link  in  any  way,  shape,  or  form  in  the  matter,  except 
I  told  him  that  if  the  situation  arose  he  would  be  advised  at  that 
time  what  to  do.  I  did  not  advise  him  that  he  should  not  testify. 

Q.  Did  you  advise  him  not  to  testify  ? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Why  did  you  suggest - A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Wait.  Why  did  Mr.  Reed,  who  was  employed  by  you,  suggest 
to  Mr.  Link  that  he  should  not  testify? — A.  From  what  developed 
after  Mr.  Reed  got  there,  Mr.  Link  refused  to  testify  before  the 
grand  jury  and  was  let  go  and  there  was  a  contempt  proceeding, 
and  the  court  rules  that  he  should  answer  the  question  and  he  did 
answer  the  question. 

Q.  Mr.  Link  refused  to  testify  before  the  grand  jury  in  Sangamon 
County  in  relation  to  the  investigation  of  corruption  by  members  of 
the  legislature  on  the  advice  of  Mr.  Reed,  who  was  employed  by  you, 
didn’t  he? — A.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Link  never  declined  to  testify  on  that 
proposition  at  all.  There  was  but  one  question  put  to  Mr.  Link,  and 


378  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

that  was  a  question  over  which  a  contest  arose,  and  that  question 
was  whether  or  not  Mr.  Link  had  been  promised  any  money  or  had 
received  any  money  in  Sangamon  County  for  his  vote  for  Lorimer. 
There  was  no  question  propounded  to  Mr.  Link  after  that  question 
was  answered  before  the  grand  jury,  and  there  was  no  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  state’s  attorney  there  interrogating  Mr.  Link  with  ref¬ 
erence  to  any  other  matter.  That  was  the  situation  exactly. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Link  refuse  to  answer  that  question? — A.  I  suppose 
that  was  the  question.  He  did  refuse  to  answer  it  on  the  advice  of 
Mr.  Reed. 

Q.  Keed  was  employed  by  you? — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Then  he  was  taken  before  the  judge  of  that  court  and  was 
ordered  by  the  judge  to  go  before  the  grand  jury  and  testify  in  an¬ 
swer  to  that  question  ? — A.  To  answer  that  question :  yes. 

Q.  Did  he  then  go? — A.  He  did.  I  am  not  testifying  now  from 
personal  knowledge,  of  course. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? — A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  that  he  said,  “  No,  I  did  not?  ” — A.  I  suppose 
he  said  “No,”  because  that  is  what  he  had  told  me. 

Q.  What  is  that? — A.  I  say,  I  suppose  he  said  “  No,”  because  that 
is  what  he  had  told  me,  “  No,”  to  that  question. 

Q.  He  told — Reed,  the  man  emploved  by  you,  told  you  that  he 
answered  “  No?  ” — A.  No. 

Q.  No,  to  what? — A.  To  that  question. 

Q.  What  was  the  ’  question  ? — A.  The  question  was — I  am  not 
exactly  clear  as  to  the  form  of  the  question,  but  it  was  either  one  of 
two  forms :  Whether  he  had  been  promised  in  Sangamon  County  any 
money  for  his  vote  for  Lorimer,  or  had  been  given  any7  money  in 
Sangamon  County.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  it  was  the  first 
question. 

Q.  And  he  answered  “No?  ” — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  then  he  was  interrogated  further  by  the  state’s  attorney 
before  the  grand  jury,  and  he  refused  to  answer,  didn’t  he?— A.  No; 
I  am  advised  differently.  My  information  is  just  the  opposite.  I 
was  not  there,  of  course,  but  I  am  informed  from  the  same  source 
of  knowledge  from  which  all  of  the  information  came — from  Mr. 
Link,  from  reading  the  newspapers,  and  general  sources  of  informa¬ 
tion— that  there  was  but  one  question  propounded  by  the  state’s 
attorney  before  the  grand  jury,  and  that  was  the  only  question  pro¬ 
pounded  by  the  state’s  attorney  before  that  grand  jury,  nothing 
except  that  one  question.  If  there  was  any  other  question,  I  don't 
know  it. 

Q.  Wasn’t  there  an  agreement  between  your  representative,  Mr. 
Keed,  and  the  state’s  attorney  there  and  the  court,  that  the  further 
examination  of  Mr.  Link  would  be  deferred  at  your  request? — A.  I 
don’t  know. 

Q.  Don’t  yrou  know  that? — A.  No;  I  don’t 

Q.  What,  don’t  yrou  know  that  ?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  knew  at  the  time  Mr.  Link  was  subpoenaed  by  the  state's 
attorney  of  Sangamon  County - A.  Yes.. 

Q.  Wait  a  minute  until  I  finish  the  question.  You  knew  when  Mr. 
Link  was  subpoenaed  by  the  state’s  attorneys  to  go  before  the  grand 
jury  of  Sangamon  County,  that  he  was  in  the  custody  of  your  officer 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  379 

it  Mr.  Link’s  home,  didn’t  you? — A.  No;  I  would  not  say  he  was  in 
custody,  because  Mr.  Link - 

Q.  Is  it  because  you  don't  remember,  or  because  you  don’t  know  ? — 
V.  Because  Mr.  Link,  after  they  arrived  at  Mitchell,  O’Keefe  went 
vith  him,  and  then  Mr.  Link  went  to  St.  Louis  and  about  the  country 
is  he  pleased,  and  I  would  not  regard  it  as  custody,  and  neither  did 

vlr.  Link. 

Q.  Didn't  you  send  one  of  your  officers  down  there  with  Mr.  Link, 
md  wasn’t  he  still  with  Mr.  Link  at  the  time  Mr.  Link  was  sub¬ 
poenaed  to  go  before  the  grand  jury? — A.  Yes;  and  some  time  after 
hat. 

Q.  You  sent  your  officer  down  there  with  Mr.  Link  when  Mr.  Link 
vent  to  his  home,  and  to  the  Sangamon  County  grand  jury  at  Spring- 
ield? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  your  officer  went  with  Mr.  Link  from  the  Sangamon 
bounty  grand  jury  investigation  at  Springfield  back  to  Mr.  Link’s 
mine,  didn’t  he  ? — A.  I  think  he  did. 

Q.  Then  Mr.  Link  read  the  riot  act  to  you,  or  what  he  called  the 
•iot  act  here? — A.  Yes;  if  that  letter  is  the  riot  act. 

Q.  And  he  insisted  you  had  no  right  to  keep  him  in  custody? — A. 
STo,  sir;  Mr.  Link  never  said  a  word  to  me  at  all,  excepting  that  letter 

have  produced  here,  and  upon  the  receipt  of  that  letter  I  telephoned 
o  John  O'Keefe  to  come  home. 

Q.  What  was  the  full  name  of  the  officer  you  sent? — A.  John 
TKeefe. 

Q.  John  J.  O’Keefe? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  He  was  a  regular  police  officer  assigned  to  duty  in  your  office  ? — 
L  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  we  have  had  that  already  three  times. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  identify  him  as  being  the  same  man. — 
L  Yes;  the  same  man. 

Q.  And  Turner,  you  have  referred  to,  is  the  same  man  who  is 
mown  as  Tierny? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Didn't  he  go  by  the  name  of  Tierny  down  through  the  State? — 
L  That  is  what  I  understand ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  is  the  superintendent  of  the  McGuire  &  White  Detective 
Agency? — A.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  is  the  superintendent  or 
iot.  He  is  connected  with  the  McGuire  &  White  agency. 

Q.  He  is  not  assigned  to  your  office  to  duty? — A.  No.'  McGuire  & 
Vhite  were  employed  by  me  to  send  a  man  over.  I  didn’t  know  Mr. 
Ahite,  but  I  referred - 

Q.  Did  you  ever  employ  White  or  the  McGuire  &  White  agency  in 
hese  matters  before  you  commenced  the  investigation  of  the  story 
vhich  was  printed  in  the  Tribune  on  the  30th  of  last  April? — A.  In 
hese  particular  matters? 

i  Q.  Yes. — A.  Yes.  I  had  employed  McGuire  &  White,  I  should 
hink,  thirty  days  prior  to  the  edition  of  the  Tribune  of  April  30,  the 
late  of  that  story  being  printed. 

Q.  That  is,  you  employed  him  in  this  particular  matter? — A.  In 
hat  case  only. 

Q.  But  before  that  time  McGuire  &  White  Detective  Agency  had 
>een  employed  by  the  Tribune? — A.  I  so  understood  from  Mr.  Mc- 
iuire  in  his  first  conference  with  me;  in  that  conference,  when  I 


380  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

sought  to  employ  him  he  said  he  had  been  employed  by  the  Tribune. 
Then  I  said, “  I  will  not  employ  you  unless  you  will  work  exclusively 
and  take  instructions  from  me  and  be  paid  by  me.”  He  said,  “  I  will 
let  you  know  in  about  a  half  an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a  half;  I  will 
have  to  see,”  and  he  did,  and  then  he  said,  “All  right;  I  have  been  re¬ 
leased  by  the  Chicago  Tribune.” 

Q.  Between  the  time  you  asked  him  to  work  exclusively  for  you 
and  the  time  he  gave  that  answer  he  had  communicated  with  the  Chi¬ 
cago  Tribune  and  gotten  permission  to  do  so,  hadn’t  he? — A.  I  don’t 
know ;  I  assumed  he  had. 

Q.  Well,  it  was - A.  He  told  me  in  his  first  conference,  when  I 

first  offered  to  employ  him,  that  he  could  not  accept  employment  with¬ 
out  consulting  the  Tribune,  who  had  already  employed  him  to  do 
some  little  work  in  it;  not  so  very  much,  though. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  investigating  the  alleged  story  of  White 
before  the  publication  of  the  story  on  the  30th  of  April  ? — A.  I  would 
say — I  could  answer  that  better  by  telling  you  exactly  when  I  first 
received - 

Q.  Can’t  you  tell  it  by  the  calendar? — A.  Yes.  All  right.  I  will 
say,  investigating  it — if  you  will  cover  by  that  everything  I  did  with 
reference  to  the  case,  I  might  say  I  began  investigating  it  about  the 
25th  day  of  March. 

Q.  You  had  been  investigating  the  testimony  more  than  a  month 
before  the  publication? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  know  how  long  the  Tribune  had  been  trying  to  find  out 
something,  or  had  been  investigating  it  before  that  time? — A.  What? 

Q.  I  beg  your  pardon.  Did  you  know  how  long  the  Tribune, 
through  the  McGuire  &  White  agency ,  had  been  investigating  or 
trying  to  find  some  facts  in  relation  to  it  before  you  commenced  on 
the  25th  of  March? — A.  No.  My  judgment  is  very  little  because  of 
the  small  amount  of  information  that  Mr  McGuire  had. 

Q.  Haven’t  you  been — didn’t  you  know  they  had  been  investigating 
it  for  more  than  a  month? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  had  no  intimation  of  that  kind? — A.  No. 

Q.  Not  at  all? — A.  No. 

Q.  From  McGuire  or  anybody  else? — A.  No. 

Q.  When  you  employed  McGuire  on  the  25th  of  March  to  investi¬ 
gate  this  matter,  didn’t  you  ask  McGuire  or  somebody  connected  with 
his  agency,  that  had  to  do  with  that  matter,  how  long  they  had  been 
investigating  it  before  that? — A.  No. 

Q.  Or  wThat  information  they  had? — A.  Yes;  I  asked  them  what 
information  they  had  at  the  time  I  employed  McGuire,  and  he  told 
me  they  had  no  information;  and  that  is  what  I  based  my  judgment 
on,  that  he  had  not  been  employed  very  long. 

Q.  So  that  at  the  time  you  started  in  to  make  your  investigation, 
on  or  about  the  25th  of  March,  you  were  told  by  a'  representative 
of  the  Tribune,  the  McGuire  &  White  agency,  that  they  had  nc 
evidence  whatever  to  substantiate  White’s  story. — A.  No;  I  was  not 
told  that. 

Q.  What  were  you  told? — A.  I  was  told  that  there  had  been  nc 
investigation  made  to  any  extent  at  all,  because  I  asked  Mr.  McGuire 
what  they  knew  about  it,  and  he  said,  “  We  have  done  nothing  to¬ 
ward  investigating  the  manuscript  of  White  at  all.” 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  381 


Let  me  correct  one  thing.  I  don’t  believe  that  McGuire  &  White 
vere  hired  as  early  as  the  25th  of  March.  My  investigation  started 
it  that  time.  I  had  the  matter  myself  for  I  should  judge  a  week  or 
en  days  before  I  employed  McGuire  &  White  at  that  time,  and  I 
mow  there  had  been  nothing  of  any  importance  done.  What  they 
lad  done  I  did  not  know. 

Q.  On  the  25th  of  March  you  asked  White - A.  Now,  Judge,  I 

lo  not  fix  that  absolutely  as  the  25th.  It  was  a  little  bit  before  the 
Lst  of  April,  I  know,  and  I  say  around  about  the  25th  of  March. 

Q.  The  25th  of  April — of  March,  rather,  you  asked  McGuire  what 
nformation  they  had  to  sustain  that  story,  didn’t  you  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you? — A.  He  told  me  they  had  made  no  in¬ 
vestigation  as  to  the  evidence  at  all. 

Q.  And  they  had  no  information? — A.  I  would  not  be  clear  just 
exactly  the  way  he  put  it. 

Q.  Well,  I  want  what  he  said  and  what  he  meant. — A.  Well,  he 
;aid - - 

Q.  Is  that  what  he  said? — A.  No;  but  that  they  had  some  general 
nformation  that  they  picked  up ;  but  there  had  been  no  investigation, 
Slothing  tangible.  ’ 

Q.  If  there  had  been  no  investigation,  then,  of  course,  they  had  no 
nformation? — A.  I  don’t  know,  judge. 

Q.  You  were  asking  that  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  or  for 
guiding  you  in  what  way  to  proceed  in  your  investigation  ? — A.  Cer- 
ainly;  yes. 

Q,  What  officers  had  you  in  your  office,  what  officers  of  the  city 
>f  Chicago  assigned  to  your  office,  had  you  during  the  time  of  these 
nvestigations  ? — A.  Officer  O’Keefe,  Officer  Kealy,  Officer  Muriam, 
)fficers  Kerr,  Oakey,  and  Murphy. 

Q.  Each  one  was  a  city  police  officer? — A.  Yes,  sir;  assigned  to 
ay  office. 

Q.  Assigned  to  the  duty  of  police  in  your  office,  assigned  by  the 
>olice  department?— A.  Yes;  employed  to  do  whatever  I  asked 'them 
o  do  in  the  way  of  performing  the  duties  of  the  office. 

Q.  You  called  a  special  grand  jury,  I  think  you  said? — A.  The 
ourt  did  on  my  petition. 

Q.  When  was  that? — A.  The  29th  day  of  April. 

Q.  That  was  the  day  the  contract  was  signed  between  the  Tribune 
nd  Charles  A.  White?— A.  It  subsequently  so  developed;  I  believe 
he  contract  so  shows. 

Q.  That  is  the  fact  whether - A.  The  contract  speaks  for  itself; 

don’t  know. 

Q.  You  were  in  almost  constant  communication  with  Mr.  James 
Ceeley,  Mr.  Alfred  Austrian,  Mr.  Thomas  McGuire,  or  some  one  or 
lore  of  them  in  relation  to  these  matters  after  the  25th  of  March, 
r  about  the  25th  of  March,  weren’t  you  ? — A.  When  I  commenced 
he  investigation  I  was  in  constant  communication  with  Mr.  Mc¬ 
Guire.  I  was  not  in  constant  communication  or  intermittent  c.om- 
lunication  with  Mr.  Keeley;  neither  was  I  in  any  communication 
•hatever  to  overcome  this  matter  with  Mr.  Austrian;  but  Mr.  Mc- 
iuire  was  employed  by  me  and  taking  orders  from  me  every  day. 
Q.  Had  you  never  conferred  with  Mr.  Keeley  about  it?— A.  Yes¬ 
es. 

Q.  How  often? — A.  Twice. 


382  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  And  the  rest  of  your  conferences  or  communications  in  relation 
to  the  matter  was  through  McGuire,  their  former  detective? — A. 
There  was  no  communication  through  Mr.  McGuire.  Mr.  McGuire 
was  working  for  me  and  he  had  no  communication  from  me  to  the 
Tribune.  If  I  wanted  to  communicate  with  Mr.  Keeley,  I  would 
have  communicated  with  him  direct. 

Q.  Mr.  Wayman,  you  personally  prosecuted  the  two  Browne 
cases? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  During  the  trial  of  the  second  Browne  case  you  called  another 
special  grand  jury,  didn't  you? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  indicted  some  of  the  witnesses  who  testified  for  the  defense 
in  that  case  immediately  upon  their  testifying? — A.  Judge  Brentano 
called  the  jury  and  I  presented  the  evidence,  and  the  grand  jury 
returned  indictments  against  Gloss  and  Keeley,  and  those  cases  will 
be  tried ;  they  are  pending,  and  those  cases  will  be  tried  promptly. 

Q.  Thank  you.  Judge  Brentano  called  the  special  grand  jury  at 
your  request  1 — A.  Certainly. 

Q.  How  many  indictments  were  returned  by  that  special  grand 
jury? 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  difference  does  it  make? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  say  that  I  will  show  that  they  were  only  for 
the  purpose  of  intimidating  witnesses  in  the  Browne  case;  that  they 
had  that  effect;  and  that  they  brought  in  three  indictments  and  they 
were  only  in  session  three  or  four  days. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  wait  a  minute. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  right,  isn’t  it,  Mr.  Wayman?— A.  Well, 
Judge - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Wait  just  a  minute,  Mr.  Wayman. 

Senator  Burrows.  How  many  indictments  were  found? — A.  Two, 
I  think,  against  Gloss  and  Keeley. 

Judge  Hanecy.  They  were  two  witnesses  who  had  testified  in  the 
defense  of  Browne  in  the  second  Browne  case? — A.  Who,  in  my 
judgment,  committed - 

Senator  Burrows.  Your  judgment  is  not  asked.  Please  answer 
the  questions. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  you - 

Senator  Burrows.  Wait  a  moment,  Judge.  Mr.  Wayman,  when 
a  question  is  asked  you  should  answer  it  directly. — A.  I  will. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  your  answer  be  direct  and  responsive  to 
the  question. — A.  All  right. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Gloss,  whom  you  had  indicted  bv  that  grand 
jury  was  a  street-car  conductor  in  the  City  Traction  Company 
here - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  he  was  indicted - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Wait  a  minute;  wait  a  minute,  please. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  no  question  pending  yet. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  yes:  there  is.  There  has  been  a  question  put. 
I  desire  to  enter  an  objection  to  this  line  of  examination. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  no  question  put. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  yes;  there  is.  Just  read  that  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  haven’t  finished  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  it. 

(Question  read.) 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  383 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  answered  that  question? 

A  Voice.  He  nodded  his  head.  “  Yes.” 

The  Witness.  I  have  not  answered  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Please  answer  it,  then. 

A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  he  was  indicted  because  he  and  his  wife 
estified  that  Otis  Yarborough — Sidney  Yarborough— who  is  said 
>v  White  to  be  in  White’s  room  when  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  went 
hrough  and  took  him  out  and  asked  him  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer, 
nd  promised  to  pay  him  $1,000  if  he  did,  or  pay  him  something?— 
L  No. 

Q.  V  ait  a  minute.  And  Gloss  was  called  as  a  witness  and  testi- 
ied  that  Sidney  Yarborough  was  in  Chicago  on  the  night  that 
Vhite  and  Yarborough  swore  that  Yarborough  was  in  Spring- 
ield? — A.  To  the  last  question,  or  the  last  half  of  that  question, 
ather,  I  will  answer  yes,  and  to  the  first,  no. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  want  to  know  whether  the  committee  has  ruled? 
Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  has  answered. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  through,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Through? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  further  questions,  Mr.  Austrian  ? 
Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  be  excused  Mr.  Wayman.  Mr.  De 
Volf  desires  to  make  a  correction,  the  committee  is  advised. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  just  one  question.  I  covered  the  Gloss 
latter  and  I  wanted  to  know  whether,  after  indictment  by  that  spe- 
ial  grand  jury,  was  on  a  question  put  to  Mr.  Keeley — was  not  be- 
ause  of  Mr.  Keeley’s  testimony  in  the  Browne  case — A 
Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute,  Mr.  Wavman.— A.  What  is  that 
uestion.  ~  Read  it — read  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  was  because  of  the  testimony  that  the  officer 
ave  for  the  defense  in  the  second  Browne  trial. — A.  The  charge  of 
erjury  arose  out  of  that  testimony. 

Q.  And  the  trial  was  still  on  at  "that  time? 

(No  answer.) 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  De  Wolf,  will  you  take  the  stand  ? 

John  Henry  De  Wolf,  recalled  as  a  witness,  testified  as  follows: 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  De  Wolf,  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you 
esired  to  make  some  correction  in  your  testimony? — A.  Yes,  sir." 

Q.  \  ou  may  do  so  now. — A.  1l  esterday,  when  the  gentleman  asked 
ie  about  some  statements - 

Q.  A  little  louder. — A.  I  say,  when  the  gentleman  asked  me  about 
ime  statements  at  the  closing  time,  about  some  statements  I  hereto- 
ire  made  to  Mr.  English  or  to  Mr.  Beckemeyer — I  have  the  highest 
‘gard  to  those  gentlemen  now. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  ask  to  have  that  stricken  out.  Let  us  have  his 
irrection. — A.  All  right,  the  correction  is,  I  very  often  use  the 
ords,  “  from  Missouri,”  and  I  might  have  said  that  I  was  from 
lissouri  and  they  would  have  to  show  me.  I  might  have  made  that 
atement.  I  am  not  positive  about  it,  but  my  best  recollection  is  I 
o  n°^’  Sen^emen5  but  I  wanted  to  make  that  correction. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  any  other  correction? — A.  There  is. 


384  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Frazier.  In  what  connection  did  you  use  that  expression. 

«  show  me?  ” _ A.  If  I  used  that  expression,  and  I  often  use  it  now, 

why  I  did  not  use  it  in  the  way  of  meaning  that  they  would  have 
to  give  me  money  or  anything  like  that.  They  would  have  to  show 
me  the  man,  and  that  he  suited  me,  and  was  all  light,  or  something 

like  that.  , 

Senator  Frazier.  Was  that  in  response  to  a  question  as  to  whether 

you  should  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  or  whether  you  would  vote  foi 
him  2 _ A.  I  don’t  think  it  was.  I  don’t  know  that  I  made  this  state¬ 

ment  at  all,  but  it  is  something  that  I  often  use,  I  am  from  Mis¬ 
souri,  and  they  will  have  to  show  me,”  and  if  I  did  say  so  it  was  m  a 
jocular  way,  and  had  no  significance  whatever  in  regard  to  monej 

at  Senator  Frazier.  Did  they,  or  either  one  of  those  gentlemen,  dis¬ 
cuss  the  question  with  you  as  to  whether  you  would  vote  for  Mr 
Lorimer? — A.  I  don’t  remember  that  they  e\er,  either  one  of  th( 

gentlemen,  ever  spoke  to  me  about  it.  . 

Q.  How  did  you  happen  to  use  the  expression,  Show  me,  I  an 
from  Missouri?*”— A.  I  don’t  know;  I  might  have  used  it— I  oftei 
use  it.  Now,  there  is  another  correction. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  was  a  question  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and  that  1 
what  I  think  it  refers  to  if  a  certain  thing  was  not  said,  and  he  san 
“No.”  Then,  Mr.  Austrian  asked  him,  “Don’t  you  think  you  san 
‘You  have  got  to  show  me,’”  and  he  said  “No.”  Now,  I  assum 
that  he  wants  to  correct  that  by  saying  that  possibly  he  may  hav 

^Mr.k Austrian.  I  object.  Let  the  record  show  his  own  correctioi 

and  not  have  the  judge  make  it  for  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  other  correction  you  desire  t 

make? _ A.  I  have  a  correction  also,  and  I  don’t  know  what  th 

record  shows  on  that,  but  the  gentleman  asked  me  about  paying  $20 
down  on  this  piece  of  land.  My  recollection  now  is— and  I  dorr 
know  what  the  record  shows — my  best  recollection  is  that  1  paid  $bU( 
I  am  not  positive  as  to  that,  but  that  is  my  best  recollection 

Now,  I  desire  to  say  something  else  to  this  committee,  and  that  is, 

want  to  know  if  I  may  ask  them  a  question  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  ask  the  question,  but  you  may  nc 

get  any  answer. 

The  Witness.  Has  this  committee  got  any  men  out  looking  up  ev 
dence  m  this  case  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  We  are  charged  by  the  Senate  with  the  pei 
formance  of  a  duty,  and  we  are  endeavoring  to  perform  it. 

Senator  Gamble.  I,  for  one  of  the  committee,  would  like  to  kno 
your  purpose  in  asking  the  question.— A.  Well,  my  purpose  m  asl 
ino-  the  question  is  this:  There  was  a  gentleman  drove  up  to  my  hoin 
the  day  before  I  was  subpoenaed  up  here,  out  on  the  farm,  and  lie  sai 
he  was  out  in  ihe  interests  of  this  senatorial  committee.  He  toe 
dinner  at  my  house,  and  asked  me  about  several  things,  and  what 
knew  and  I  think  I  stated  to  him  as  near  as  could  be  after  askir 
him  to  stay  to  dinner— I  stated  to  him  what  I  have  stated  to  the  con 
mittee  in  regard  to  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer.  He  finally,  stan< 
in"  by  a  walnut  tree  in  my  yard,  said  he  would  like  to  know  of  som 
thing  that  I  could  put  him  onto ;  something  where  he  could  go  ai 
get  some  evidence,  and  that  they  did  not  want  something  for  not. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  385 

ng.  What  he  meant  by  that  I  do  not  know.  I  saw  the  gentleman 
n  town  to-day.  That  is  why  I  have  made  the  statement. 

.  Senator  Burrows.  Is  he  in  the  room  ? — A.  I  don’t  know.  He  gave 
11s  name  to  me  as  Williams. 

Senator  Burrows.  And  said  he  was  acting  under  the  direction  of 
he  committee?  A.  He  said  he  was  acting  under  the  direction  of 
he  committee.  I  don’t  want  to  be  unfair  ;  he  may  not  have  meant 
his  committee.  I  don’t  know,  but  he  said,  “  under  the  senatorial 
ommittee.” 

Judge  Hanecy.  Where  did  you  see  him;  you  say  you  saw  him  in 
he  dty  to-day  ?  A.  I  met  him  as  I  was  coming  over  here  to-day. 

Q.  YA  here  ?  A.  I  don’t  know  the  streets  up  here,  but  over  that 
?ay  [pointing], 

Q.  Inhere  was  he  stopping? — A.  I  don’t  know;  I  am  stoppino- 
t  the  Briggs  House  myself. 

Q.  On  Randolph  and  Fifth  avenue  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  difference  does  it  make  where  he  is  stopping? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  know  where  he  came  from  in  coming 
ver  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Would  you  know  the  man  if  you  saw  him^ _ 

u  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  he  in  this  room  ? 

(Witness  looks  around  the  room.) 

A.  No.  ' 

Senator  Paynter.  Take  a  good  look.— A.  I  don’t  think  he  is  here. 
Judge  Hanecy.  Those  men  there  [pointing  to  men  at  the  press 
iblej  are  newspaper  men,  and  they  wouldn’t  do  such  a  thing. 

The  Witness.  He  also  stated  to  Mr.  Henkel,  so  Mr.  Henkel  told 
le,  the  same  thing,  and  that  was  the  cause  of  my  bringing  the  state- 
lent  here.  When  I  met  him  on  the  street  he  kind  of  let  on  that 
e  didn't  know  me  when  I  met  him  on  the  street,  until  I  stopped  him. 

Senator  Paynter.  Did  he  invite  you  to  take  dinner  with  him? _ 

.  No.  He  said  that  I  would  be  gotten  into  awful  deep  water  in 

11s  matter  before  this  investigation,  before  this  thing  was  through 

ith. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  said  that  to  you  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  To-day? — A.  To-day. 

Senator  Frazier.  Did  he  give  you  any  initials  to  his  name  * _ A 

0,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  Did  he  claim  to  be  an  officer  representing  this 
•mmittee?— A.  I  don’t  think  he  claimed  to  be  an  officer.  He  said 
}  was  out  in  the  interest  of  the  senatorial  committee,  and  that  there 
ere  several  of  them  out. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Several  men  out? 

The  Witness.  Several  of  them. 

Senator  Paynter.  And  you  say  he  told  you  they  didn’t  want  testi- 

ony  for  nothing?— A.  He  says:  “We  don’t  want  something  for 

>thmg.” 

Q.  “  Something  for  nothing?  ”— A.  That  is  right. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  rather  a  verification. 

Senator  Paynter.  What  did  you  say  the  name  was  he  gave  you?— 

•  •  He  gave  the  name  of  Williams  at  my  place. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  the  name  to-day?— A.  No. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 25 


386  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Senator  Frazier.  You  say  lie  was  at  your  place?— A.  He  was  at 
my  place.  I  tlimk  I  got  the  dispatch  the  next  day,  a  telegram  fiorn 
the  sergeant-at-arms  that  a  subpoena  had  been  issued  for  me.  X  think 
it  was  the  28tli,  but  I  would  not  be  postive  now. 

Senator  Frazier.  The  28th  was  the  day  he  was  there?— A.  les. 
I  went  to  Canton,  and  in  an  interview  with  Mr.  Henkel  he  told  him 

the  same  thing  that  same  night.  ^  . 

Q.  Where  did  he  claim  to  reside?— A.  He  didn  t  say  exactly,  but 
he  told  me  he  lived  in  Bureau  County,  west  from  my  place,  but  he 
had  been  here,  I  think,  a  few  years,  but  he  didn’t  state  where  he  was. 
Senator  Burrows.  Had  you  ever  seen  him  before?— A.  I  had  never 

seen  him  before.  .  n  „  .  T  ,, 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  could  find  him  ? — A.  I  don  t  know.  1  would 

not  know  where  to  go  to  look  for  him.  I  would  know  him  if  I  saiv 
him;  He  is  a  stout,  corpulent  man,  with  grayish  hair  and  a  short 
grayish  mustache.  I  think  he  could  be  found  in  the  city  heie. 

&  Judge  FIanecy.  About  how  old?— A.  He  told  me  he  was  52.  He 
asked  me  my  age,  and  I  told  him  I  was  54.  He  said,  .  I  am  52. 

Q.  About  how  tall  is  lie?— A.  I  don’t  know.  He  is  a  stout-built 
man ;  I  would  say  about  5  feet  10  inches  tall. 

Q.  How  much  would  he  weigh?— A.  From  180  to  200, 1  should  say 

Q.  Full  face?— A.  Yes,  sir.  0  .  AT  .  .  . 

Q.  No  beard,  except  a  short,  stubby  mustache?— A.  No  beard;  onij 

a  short,  stubby  mustache.  ,  _  . , 

Q.  How  was  he  dressed?— A.  Well,  I  can’t  tell  you.  I  would  saj 

his  clothes  were  dark,  and  he  had  on  a  brown  hat.  If  you  would  se< 
Mrs.  De  Wolf,  she  could  tell  you  more  about  his  clothes  than  I  could 
Q*  Was  vour  wife  with  you  at  the  time  you  met  him  to-day  ?— A 
No ;  my  wife  is  not  here.  She  saw  him  at  my  farm.  He  took  dinnei 

Q.  That  is  the  28th  of  last  month?— A.  The  28th  of  last  month,  J 

^^Q^This  is  October  1 ;  last  month,  that  would  be  September.— A.  . 
don’t  want  to  be  sure  about  the  date.  It  was  on  the  day  before 
received  the  telegram.  I  don’t  know  whether  I  have  got  the  telegran 
here  or  not,  but  the  next  day  after  that  I  recei\  ed  the  telegram  fron 
the  sergeant-at-arms;  but  it  was  the  day  before  I  received  the  tele 

gIQ.  It  was  the  day  before  you  received  the  telegram  that  he  was  a 

your  house  ? — A.  A  es.  ,  «  » 

Q.  The  telegram  was  from  Mr.  Nixon,  the  sergeant-at-arms 

Yes  sir 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all  the  correction  you  desire  to  make?- 
A  Yes  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  another  question  that  I  would  like  to  ask 
if  we  are  through  with  this  mysterious  stranger.  Have  you  discusse< 
with  any  one  the  subject  of  the  correction  of  your  testimony  ?—  A. 
don’t  know  but  what  I  have;  yes;  but  I  was  going  to  make  th 

correction. 

Q.  With  whom  did  you  discuss  it  ? — A.  Well,  sir,  I  think- 

> .  .  "  T  T  •  1 ij.'L  J  ^^5+-  TT  ! — \ . .  \ 


\^-^F  \  \  X  Lll  VV  II  Vy  III  A  v4  T  Vy*  vt.  JL  kj  \ J  V  «  — -  —  »  f  t  _ 

q!  You  know  who  you  discussed  it  with,  don’t  you?— A.  Well, 

think  I  discussed  it  with  two  or  three.  . 

Q.  Tell  us  who  they  were.— A.  Don’t  get  in  a  hurry.  Dive  me 

little  time,  please. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  387 

Q.  All  right. — A.  I  discussed  it  with  a  gentleman  downstairs  this 
:orning.  I  told  him  I  was  going  to  make  a  correction. 

Q.  Who  was  the  man? — A.  I  think  his  name  was  Dawson. 

Q.  Tom  Dawson? — A.  I  don’t  know  what  his  given  name  is.  I 
;  so  discussed  it  with  my  daughter  last  night.  I  said  I  was  going  to 
lake  a  correction — I  discussed  it  at  the  Briggs  House  with  her — that 
wanted  to  make  the  correction. 

Q.  Yes— A.  I  told  the  sergeant-at-arms  of  the  correction — what 
te  correction  was. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  discuss  it  with  first? — A.  I  discussed  it  first 
’  th  my  daughter. 

Q.  Then  you  went  and  saw  Tom  Dawson? — A.  No,  sir;  Tom  Daw- 
ti  came  in,  and  you  came  by  as  I  was  with  Tom  Dawson. 

Q,  In  the  lobby  of  the  hotel? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Is  Tom  Dawson  your  lawyer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Has  he  ever  given  you  any  advice  anywhere,  in  Springfield  or 
Chicago? — A,  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  De  Wolf,  you  thought  it  over  considerable,  didn’t  you?— 
I  don’t  know  whether  I  thought  it  over  very  much.  I  called  up 
3  sergeant-at-arms  after  I  got  over  to  the  Briggs  House. 

Q.  You  called  up  the  sergeant-at-arms  and  you  told  him  you 
inted  to  make  a  correction? — A.  Yes. 

3-  You  thought  it  over  and  then  decided  to  do  it? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  After  reflection,  after  leaving  the  courtroom  here,  you  con- 
ided  that  you  might  have  said  in  reply  to  a  question  I  propounded 
you  yesterday — that  you  may  have  said :  “  I  am  from  Missouri,  and 
u  will  have  to  show  me?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  might  have  said  that, 
fudge  Hanecy.  Mr.  De  Wolf,  did  Mr.  Dawson  first  speak  to  you 
'■out  it,  or  did  you  first  speak  to  him? — A.  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Dawson. 
3-  And  you  told  him  you  were  going  to  make  the  correction? — 
Yes. 

3*  So  far  as  you  know,  did  he  know  anything  about  it,  until  you 
d  him? — A.  No;  I  suppose  he  did  not;  because  nobody  else  could 
ve  spoken  to  him  about  it.  I  spoke  to  the  people  to-day.  I  have 
:t  got  any  secrets, 
fudge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Witness  will  be  excused. 

fudge  Hanecy.  I  would  like  to  ask  this  committee  to  instruct  Mr. 

}'  Wolf  if  he  sees  that  man  again,  to  get  his  name  and  address,  so 
it  he  can  be  located.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  of  a  very  serious  charac- 
,  the  charge  that  he  makes  here,  somebody  going  around  pretend- 
g  to  represent  this  honorable  committee.  It  is  a  verification  of  the 
ular  remark  of  Senator  Paynter  that  there  were  men  going  around 
i  ng  that  thing;  it  rather  verifies  it. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  think  it  is  more  important,  not  to  this  com- 
ittee,  but  it  is  more  important  for  the  committee  to  know  the  facts, 
'as,  if  possible,  to  reach  a  correct  conclusion  in  this  case.  I  would 
e  to  know,  if  improper  methods  are  being  used  to  secure  testimony, 

'  at  they  are,  and  who  is  doing  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  De  Wolf,  are  you  obliged  to  go  at  this  time? 
fir.  De  Wolf.  In  order  to  make  my  train,  Senator,  I  have  got  to 
I  want  to  leave  the  city  at  1.25.  I  would  like  to  go  home. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  is  the  position,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentle- 
>n:  If  Mr.  De  Wolf  can  not  remain  here  now — and  I  have  not  any 


388  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


desire  to  inconvenience  him  to  that  extent— -he  may  find  this  mai 
may  locate  him  before  this  honorable  committee  makes  up  its  repor 
or  acts  upon  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  you  can  locate  this  man,  or  should  run  acroj 
him  anywhere,  will  you  advise  this  committee? 

Mr.  De  Wolf.  I  will,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Get  his  full  name. 

Senator  Burrows.  Get  his  full  name  and  find  out  where  he  is. 

Mr.  De  Wolf.  I  will. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  you  can. 

Mr.  De  Wolf.  If  I  can,  and  if  they  want  me  to  come  back  the  fir, 
of  the  week  I  am  willing  to  come  back. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  may  be  done  before  any  time  up  to  the  h 

of  next  December. 

Senator  Burrows.  Whenever  you  find  that  man,  or  locate  hin 
will  you  be  kind  enough  to  advise  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  De  Wolf.  I  will,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  the  chairman  understands  another  witne: 
desires  to  make  a  correction.  Who  is  the  witness,  Mr.  Sergeant-a 


Arms  ? 

Michael  S.  Link  resumed  the  stand  and  testified  as  follows : 

Senator  Burrows.  We  are  informed  you  desire  to  correct  yoi 
testimony  in  some  particular. 

Mr.  Link.  In  this  way:  I  came  here  to  tell  the  truth.  I  was  e: 
amined  yesterday  in  relation  to  a  private  interview  with  Mr.  Wa^ 
man  and  the  first  interrogation  of  the  grand  jury,  you  understam 
The  names  of  Mr.  Lorimer  and  Mr.  Browne,  after  studying  tl 
matter  and  thinking  of  it,  it  was  not  mentioned  to  me  before  the  fir 
grand  jury,  but  in  my  statement  I  stated  I  denied  receiving  mom 
from  Mr.  Lorimer  at  the  first  grand  jury,  and  that  question  w: 
not  asked  me.  That  is  w'here  I  wish  to  correct  myself. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  were  only  asked  whether  or  not  you  were 
St.  Louis? — A.  I  do  not  remember;  I  had  been  on  the  stand  for  tl 
first  time  for  a  good  while.  It  had  nothing  to  do  with  Mr.  Browi 
or  Mr.  Lorimer.  Gentlemen,  that  is  as  far  as  I  want  to  go,  and 


thank  you. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  Murray  present,  Mr.  H.  V.  Murray  ? 

H.  Y.  Murray,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  du 
sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian  ai 
testified  as  follows : 


Q.  Mr.  Murray,  will  you  state  your  full  name,  age,  residence,  ai 
occupation? — A.  Hugh  Vincent  Murray. 

Q.  You  will  have  to  talk  a  little  louder.— A.  Hugh  Vincent  Mu 

ray,  Carlyle,  Ill. 

Q.  Do  you  occupy  any  position  in  Carlyle  ? — A.  I  am  state  s  a 
torney  there. 

Q.  What  county,  Mr.  Murray  ? — A.  Clinton  County. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  state’s  attorney  in  Clinton  County. 

A.  I  was  elected  two  years  ago.  >  , 

Q.  Mr.  Murray,  did  you  ever  have  any  talk  with  Charles  E.  Lul 
a  member  of  the  legislature,  with  reference  to  the  election  of  M 
Lorimer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  what  that  was? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  389 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
liat  is  a  question  that  was  fully  gone  into  during  Mr.  White’s 
animation. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  propose  to  show  by  this  witness  what  Mr. 
ike  said? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir.  We  can  call  Mr.  Luke’s  wife.  Mr.  Luke 
dead. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  propose  to  show  by  this  witness - 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  he  said ;  yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit  there  is  another  reason  why  he  can  not 
11  him.  There  is  no  proof  that  Mr.  Luke  is  dead. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  is  proof  Mr.  Luke  is  dead;  it  is  proved  in 
le  legislative  records. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  any  question  about  it  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  understand  he  is  dead. 

Senator  Burrows.  Objection  sustained. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Why,  that  is  in  direct  violation — I  do  not  mean 
olation — it  is  in  direct  conflict  with  this  senatorial  committee. 
Judge  Hanecy.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  in  direct  conformity. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anything  further  with  this  witness? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Why,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  you  ruled  before,  this 

is  the  substance  that  }rou  ruled  on:  You  cited - 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  the  committee  does  not  think  it 
cessary  to  argue  the  question.  You  propose  to  show  a  statement 
ade  by  a  party  now  dead  in  relation  to  this  matter;  that  is  purely 
arsay,  and  we  can  not  admit  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Is  there  any  evidence,  Mr.  Chairman — is  it  pos- 
ole  to  produce  evidence — better  than  this  evidence? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  ask  for  an  answer,  but  I  am  asking  the 
airman - 

Senator  Gamble.  How  would  it  be,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  he  were 
rmitted  to  make  his  offer  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  He  has  offered  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  ;  I  have  not  offered  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  question? 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  question  is  what  talk  he  had  with  him  with 
ference  to  this  subject-matter. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to. 

Senator  Burrows.  Then  the  chair  asked - 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  Luke  was  dead. 

Senator  Burrows  (continuing).  If  Luke  was  dead. 

Mr.  Austrian.  To  which  I  reply,  “  Yes.” 

Senator  Burrows.  You  propose  to  show  what  this  dead  man  said? 
Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  objected  to  and  objection  sustained. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  make  an  offer? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  just  as  fatal,  our  courts  have  held. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  you  have  a  jury  it  is  as  fatal,  but  this  committee 
not  sitting  as  a  jury. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  this  committee  had  the  final 
sposition  of  this  entire  matter  I  would  not  question  it  for  a  second; 
lit  this  committee  is  making  a  record  here  that  will  be  read  by 
hers  than  this  committee — by  the  larger  committee,  and  then  by 


390  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

the  entire  Senate— and  this  record  should  not  contain  in  it  some 
thing,  from  all  the  circumstances  and  the  law,  as  it  appears  here 
and  the  other  rulings  of  the  committee,  should  not  be  in  the  record 
If  it  goes  in  by  way  of  statement,  it  goes  in  with  the  sanction  of  this 
committee  that  it  has  the  same  effect,  or  may  have  the  same  effect 
with  those  who  may  read  it  hereafter.  I  submit  it  is  not  competent 
it  is  not  proper. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  very  fact,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  committe. 
reports  the  evidence  is  the  reason  why  I  should  not  only  have  per 
mission  to  make  an  offer,  but  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  I  respectfully 
submit  I  may  be  allowed  to  offer  the  testimony.  If  it  is  not  compe 
tent  it  will  be  disregarded,  and  in  the  Clark  case  that  very  questioi 
was  passed  on  by  the  Senate.  I  have  it  here,  and  in  the  Spence 
case  cited - 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  has  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  committee  may  not  have  that  ruling  befor 
that.  There  the  legislator,  Flim,  was  dead.  He  changed  his  vot 
and  voted  for  a  Republican,  and  they  admitted  the  conversation  an( 
all  the  chairman  said  was  that  it  was  unfortunate  that  he  was  dead 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  manifest  unfairness - 

Senator  Burrows.  In  the  Clark  case  it  was  stated  that  you  may 
show  that  a  certain  person  had  made  a  statement  in  relation  to  th 
matter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Not  that  his  statement  would  be  testimony  o 
evidence  before  the  committee  at  all,  but  with  a  view  of  discovering 
some  one  who  knew  something  about  the  case. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  manifest  unfairness  of  this  is  that  we  can  no 
call  Mr.  Luke  to  contradict  this.  Death  has  closed  the  mouth  o 
that  man,  and  the  law,  in  all  fairness,  should  close  the  mouth  of  tin 
man.  That  is  a  rule  of  law.  We  can  not  cross-examine.  We  cai 
not  refute  it.  We  can  not  in  any  way  deal  with  it;  he  comes  in  her 
and  tells  somebody  told  him  something  at  some  time,  and  it  is  in  her 
for  some  effect,  and  if  it  goes  in  here  by  statement  or  otherwise  1 
goes  in  with  the  sanction  of  this  committee  that  it  should  have  som 
weight  here.  Now,  the  same  thing  was  attempted  to  be  done  as  t 
Clark,  Shephard,  and  several  others.  The  question  was  asked  Whitt 
and  this  honorable  committee  ruled  that  it  was  not  competent,  was  no 
proper.  That  was  very  much  more  proper  than  this,  because  if  Mi 
White’s  testimony,  under  oath,  was  not  true,  we  could  call  thes 

people  and  contradict  it.  . 

Senator  Heyburn.  He  has  a  right  to  ask  a  question  and  get 

ruling  on  it.  .  .  _  n 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  you  recall  the  Spencer  case.  U 

course  if  you  are  going  to  state  the  law  I  would  like  to  have  you  stat 
it  so  I  can  hear  it.  If  the  chairman  will  please  bear  with  me  for 
moment.  In  the  Spencer  case  the  objection  was  sustained  there  t 
the  declaration  of  legislators,  because  they  could  have  been,  callei 
Now,  it  is  specifically  on  that  ground  in  the  Spencer  case,  which  wa 
decided  in  1873,  in  the  Clark  case  they  attempted  it,  and  in  this  ca? 
I  called  each  one  of  these  members  of  the  legislature.  We  can  nc 
call  Luke  because  he  is  dead,  but  in  the  Clark  case  they  admitte 
the  testimony  and  declaration  of  the  dead  man,  Him. 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  391 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  has  before  it  the  decision  in  the 
dark  case,  and  it  hardly  sustains  your  contention,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  read  it  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  In  the  case - 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  read  it  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  hardly  necessary.  We  have  the  case 
efore  us  and  I  read  from  the  report  of  the  committee : 

In  the  case  of  George  C.  Spencer  (Senate  Election  Cases,  611,  633),  the  com¬ 
mittee  refused  to  receive  testimony  showing  that  certain  persons  had  said  that 
hey  had  received  money  as  a  consideration  for  voting  for  Mr.  Spencer. 

In  the  case  of  Henry  B.  Payne,  Senator  from  Ohio,  there  was  an  offer  to 
roduce  testimony  “  pointing  to  bribery,  consisting  of  conversation,  statements, 
nd  admissions  of  implicated  members  and  others.”  [Citing  pages  714  and  716.] 
*ut  seven  members  of  the  committee,  namely,  Messrs.  Pugh,  Saulsbury,  Vance, 
:ustis,  Teller,  Evarts,  and  Logan,  held  that  there  was  no  ground  laid  which 
/ould  justify  even  an  investigation  of  the  charge.  Two  members  of  the  com- 
jittee,  Messrs.  Hoar  and  Frye,  dissented  from  that  conclusion  and  in  their 
iews  say : 

“  It  is  said  that  much  of  this  is  hearsay,  and  that  taken  together  it  is  insuf- 
cient  to  overcome  the  presumption  arising  from  the  certificate  of  election. 
Ve  are  not  now  dealing  with  that  question.  The  Senate  is  to  determine 
whether  there  is  probable  cause  for  inquiry.” 

In  the  case  of  William  A.  Clark  the  rule  excluding  hearsay  testimony  was 
omewhat  relaxed,  Mr.  Hoar  remarking  that  testimony  of  this  character  might 
e  received  de  bene,  to  be  disregarded  if  the  facts  to  which  the  hearsay  testi- 
ciony  pointed  should  not  be  established  by  competent  proof.  But  a  minority 
f  the  committee  complained  bitterly  of  the  admission  of  the  testimony  for 
ny  purpose  and  in  their  views  say : 

“  It  was  our  misfortune  not  to  agree  with  a  majority  of  the  committee  in 
he  general  conduct  of  the  investigation  in  this  case.  We  believed  that  in  this 
mportant  inquiry  the  committee  was  bound  by  and  ought  to  act  on  the  ordi- 
lary  rules  of  evidence. 

“And  in  this  contention  we  merely  followed  another  member  of  the  commit- 
ee,  who  is  one  of  our  great  lawyers  and  who  is  fresh  from  a  long  service  as  a 
tisi  prius  judge  under  federal  authority.  That  great  lawyer  in  gentle  but 
orceful  language  admonished  us  of  the  great  danger  of  disregarding  the  com- 
non  rules  of  evidence  established  by  great  judges  through  the  centuries  and 
mown  to  all  lawyers.  But  it  was  said  the  committee  was  not  a  court  and  had 
l  right  to  receive  hearsay  evidence  in  order  to  get  on  the  track  of  better 
:vidence.  And  we  did  receive  it  constantly  and  in  great  volumes.” 

And  the  majority  of  the  committee,  in  their  reply  to  this  complaint  and  to 

i  similar  one  by  Mr.  Clark,  say:  _  ,  .. 

“The  answers  to  this  complaint  are  simple:  (1)  That  no  such  testimony 
vas  received,  except  after  deliberate  decision  by  the  committee  for  the  pur- 
>ose  of  ascertaining  what  additional  witnesses  it  might  be  necessary  to  sum- 
uon,  as  stated  by  the  chairman  on  page  [so  and  so  forth]  for  the  puipose  of 

iscertaining  what  witness  could  be  called.  . 

“  The  Chairman.  It  would  only  be  admissible  as  laying  the  foundation  tor 

lending  for  other  witnesses.  ,  . 

“(2)  That  no  single  finding  of  the  committee  has  been  based  on  hearsay 

estimony.” 

The  committee  hold  that  the  proposed  testimony  is  not  admissible 

ind  sustain  the  objection.  .  a 

Mr.  Austrian.  All  I  want  to  know  now  is  if  I  can  make  an  oner. 

1  do  not  know  what  the  practice  is  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  would  hardly  be  fair. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then  may  I  put  a  question? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  the  same  thing. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  is  hardly  fair  to  go  on  and  state  what  you 
might  prove  by  this  dead  witness,  when  the  committee  has  ruled  that 

you  can  not  show  it. 


392  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  very  true.  I  am  asking  if  I  may  put  a  ques¬ 
tion  or  make  an  offer  or  desist  in  this  line  of  examination.  I  am  will¬ 
ing  to  bow  to  whatever  the  method  of  procedure  adopted  by  the  com¬ 
mittee  may  be.  Of  course,  I  can  not  preserve  the  question  in  any  way, 
unless  you  permit  me  to  put  the  question  or  make  an  offer. 

Senator  Burrows.  Whatever  the  question  may  be,  you  have  stated 
that  your  purpose  is  to  show  a  declaration  of  a  man  who  is  dead. 
The  committee  ruled  that  such  line  of  testimony  is  not  permissible. 

Mr.  Austrian.  But  the  answer  comes  right  back,  as  you  will  readily 
see  that  declarations  must  bear  upon  this  subject  and  must  be  some 
substantive  fact. 

Senator  Burrows.  Concede  it  is  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  willing  to  concede  it.  Let  the  record  show  I' 
offer  to  prove  by  this  witness  that  he  had  a  talk  with  one  Luke - 

Senator  Burrows.  That  he  has  stated. 

Mr.  Austrian  (continuing).  That  would  bear  directly  upon  Luke’s 
voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator - 

Senator  Burrows.  That  he  has  stated. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  that  if  permitted  to  prove  by  this  witness  that 
fact - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  to  state  what  the  fact  is. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  his  stating  this.  If  he  wants  to  state  it, 
he  has  a  newspaper  to  do  it  through. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  to  state  what  the  fact  is,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man.  I  am  not  going  to  state  what  the  evidence  is,  Mr.  Chairman ; 
take  my  word  for  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Counsel  would  not  do  that,  in  view  of  the  ruling. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That,  in  my  judgment,  it  would  throw  light  upon 
the  vote  of  Mr.  Luke  for  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Senator  Paynter.  By  proving  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Austrian.  By  proving  what  he  said,  and  I  would  follow  it  up 
by  other  evidence  tending  to  show  that  that  statement  was  true. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  if  it  might  throw  light,  this  is 
hearsay  testimony  from  the  mouth  of  a  man  whose  lips  are  sealed. 
It  might  be  a  false  light. 

Mr.  Austrian.  But,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  follow  that  up  by 
declaration  made  by  and  to  his  wife  and  by  the  show  of  sudden 
wealth. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  ask  that  be — I  ask  that 
that  statement  be  stricken  from  the  record  as  coming  directly  within 
the  line  of  the  matter  that  this  committee  held  should  not  go  in,  and 
which  this  learned  counsel  said  he  would  not  avail  himself  of  the 
privilege  of  putting  in. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  if  you  can  show  by  the  wife,  or 
anybody  else,  that  he  was  possessed  by  sudden  wealth  after  that,  that 
is  another  thing. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  can  I  then  follow  it  up  with  this 
testimony  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  The  hearsay  testimony? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  No,  sir;  the  committee  thinks  not. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  393 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  that  statement  of  counsel  be  stricken  from 
the  record,  that  he  proposed  to  follow  that  up  by  showing  sudden 
possession  of  wealth? 

Senator  Bukrows.  The  Chair  thinks  it  should  go  out. 

Senator  Frazier.  That  is  substantive  and  can  be  proven  without 
reference  to  the  statement  that  the  dead  man  could  have  made  to  this 
witness. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  ask  one  further  question?  Declarations 
made  at  the  exhibition  of  sudden  wealth  or  in  discussing  the  source 
of  the  sudden  wealth,  may  I  make  that  proof? 

Senator  Burrows.  When  you  call  a  witness  on  that  point,  we  will 
pass  upon  it.  We  will  pass  upon  that  question  when  it  is  reached. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  will  be  all  then,  Mr.  Murray. 

Mr.  Murray.  May  I  be  excused  then? 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  need  this  witness  further? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Will  you  wait  just  a  minute,  Mr.  Murray? 

Senator  Burrows.  The  hour  of  1  o’clock  having  arrived,  the  com¬ 
mittee  will  take  a  recess  until  2  o’clock. 

(Whereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  2  o’clock  p.  m.,  Satur¬ 
day,  October  1,  1910.) 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Saturday,  October  1 , 1910. 

At  2  p.  m.  the  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  and  the 
following  proceedings  were  had: 

James  J.  Gray,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly 
sworn,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and  testified  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name? — A.  James  J.  Gray. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside? — A.  Belle  Isle,  Ill. 

Q.  What  is  your  business? — A.  Condensed-milk  business. 

Q.  Mr.  Gray,  do  you  know  H.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer,  a  member  of  the 
legislature? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him? — A.  About  all  my  life;  we 
were  boys  together. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  event  in  the  month  of  July,  1909,  of  meet¬ 
ing  with  Mr.  Beckemeyer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee,  please,  the  circumstances  of 
that  meeting? — A.  Along  the  latter  part  of  July - 

Judge  Hanecy  (interrupting).  I  object  to  any  conversation  he 
bad  with  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  is  not  in  reference  to  a  conversation. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  want  him  to  tell  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  anything  is  improper,  it  may  be  stricken  out;  it 
doesn’t  call  for  the  conversation. — A.  He  came  into  our  place  of 
ousiness  and  asked  me  to  go  to  the  bank  and  identify  him.  He  said 
be  wanted  to  make  a  deposit,  and  I  went  over  and  identified  him. 

Q.  What  occurred  there? — A.  He  made  a  deposit. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  this 
is  the  same  as  though  he  stated  it.  If  by  words,  motions,  or  actions, 


394  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


and  it  is  not  material  whether  he  said  it  in  words  or  with  his  fingers 
or  writes  it  or  some  other  way.  He  can  not  corroborate  himself  in 
that  way,  nor  can  they  corroborate  him  by  showing  he  did  something 
or  told  somebody  something,  by  words  or  signs. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  can  state  if  he  made  a  deposit  there. 
A.  Five  hundred  dollars. 

Q.  What  bank?— A.  The  Commercial  Trust  Company. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Q.  Did  you  give  the  date? — A.  It  seems  to  me  it  was  about  the 
latter  part  of  Julv  or  1st  of  August;  I  am  not  positive. 

Judge  Hanecy"  IVhat  year?— A.  Last  year;  1909. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer  was  practicing  law  there  ? — A.  Tes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  own  farms  or  property  there? — A.  I  am  not  positive 
that  he  owned  a  farm  at  that  time  or  not,  I  was  away.  I  don’t 
know  whether  he  had  the  farm  at  that  time  or  not. 

Q.  Did  he  own  property  there?— A.  Yes,  sir;  he  did  own  property; 

he  owns  property  there. 

Q.  Did  he  have  an  account  before  that,  or  don’t  you  know  any¬ 
thing  about  that?— A.  Not  very  much.  I  suppose  he  had  not,  or  I 
would  not  have  to  identifv  him. 

Q.  Did  you  count  the  money?— A.  No,  sir;  I  just  happened  to  see 

it  lying  there ;  he  showed  it  to  me.  # 

Q.  Did  he  count  it  out  in  your  presence  and  show  it  to  you? — A. 

Yes  sir. 

Q.  Counted  out  each  bill,  did  he?  Why  did  he  count  out  each  bill 
t0  you?— A.  I  think  it  was  a  $100  bill,  and  I  asked  him  where  he  got 

his  $100  bill. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  move  to  strike  that  out. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  an  answer  to  the  question. 

Jud ge  Hanecy.  I  didn’t  ask  him  for  the  conversation. 

Q.  Why  did  he  count  that  out  before  you?  Did  you  ask  him  to 

count  that  out? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  ask  that  that  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  answer  is  perfectly  responsive. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  like  to  make  a  suggestion  about  strik¬ 
ing  out  things;  they  may  want  to  be  considered  at  some  future  time. 
I  think  it  does  not'mean  that  it  goes  out  of  the  stenographer's  notes 

at  all  —  v 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  sir,  but  that  it  does  not  constitute  a  part  of 

the  record ;  that  is  all. 

(Last  question  and  answer  read  by  the  stenographer.) 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  not  responsive  to  my  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  not  responsive  to  the  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  ask  that  it  be  stricken  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  think  that  part  of  the  answer  that  is  not  re¬ 
sponsive  to  the  question  should  be, 

(Last  question  again  read  by  the  stenographer.)  . 

A.  I  stated  I  noticed  that  he  had  a  $100  bill  and  I  asked  him 

where  he  got  his  $100  bill.  Ti  .  , 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  move  that  that  be  stricken  out.  It  is  not  re 

sponsive  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  witness  is  making  the  best  answer  he  can.  ? 
Judge  Hanecy.  Fie  was  asked  a  question  and  he  can  sav  he  doesn  i 
know  or  he  does  know.  If  he  says  he  does  know,  I  might  ask  him 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  395 

what  his  knowledge  was  or  not,  as  I  thought  best;  and  if  he  didn’t 
know,  that  would  end  it;  and  I  submit  that  is  the  only  proper  way 
for  him  to  do,  and  that  is  the  only  way  in  which  it-  should  go  into 
the  record. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  know  why  he  counted  out  the  money 
and  showed  it  to  you? — A.  I  asked  him  that  question  and  he  gave 
me  that  answer ;  that  is  all  I  can  answer. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  know  why  he  counted  out  the  money? 
That  is  the  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes  or  no,  do  you  know  why  he  counted  out  the 
money  in  your  presence?  Not  your  speculation  or  guess,  but  your 
knowdedge. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  can  not  answer  that  without  speculation  or 
guessing,  why  he  counted  out  the  money ;  he  has  got  to  look  into  that 
man’s  mind. 

Senator  Gamble.  Did  he  count  the  money  in  your  presence,  the 
amount  of  money  there  was  counted  ? — A.  I  will  say  yes. 

Q.  He  did  count  out  the  money  in  your  presence? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  next? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  wTill  ask  that  this  conversation  with  Mr.  Becke- 
meyer  be  stricken  out.  It  was  not  responsive  to  the  question  at  all, 
and  was  speculation  on  the  part  of  the  witness. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  will  go  out  for  the  present. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all  I  desire. 

Examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  What  were  the  denominations  of  the  bills  you  saw  ? — A.  A  $100 

bill. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  where  he  got  it  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that.  That  is  the  same  question  that 
has  been  ruled  on  several  times.  He  can  not  make  corroborative  or 
self-supporting  testimony  for  himself. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  said  he  deposited  it  at  the  Commercial  Trust 
Bank,  and  this  gentleman  took  him  there  and  introduced  him.  That 
is  a  part  of  the  res  gestae. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  a  collateral  matter;  there  is  no  res  gestae  on 
a  collateral  thing.  The  doctrine  of  res  gestae  applies  to  the  thing 
itself.  This  is  offered  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  this  honorable 
committee  or  somebody  else  to  infer  or  draw  a  deduction  or  inference 
against  the  presumption  of  innocence;  the  direct  inference  that  he 
got  this  money  by  improper  methods  and  in  an  improper  manner,  not 
from  the  same  general,  but  from  other,  sources  that  it  is  claimed  here 
it  was  paid.  I  submit  the  matter  can  not  be  proven  in  that  way  by 
proving  a  lot  of  collateral  things  and  leave  it  for  somebody  to  infer. 

Senator  Gamble.  Is  this  for  the  purpose  of  impeaching  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Mr.  Beckemeyer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Or  of  supporting  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Of  course  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  it. 

Senator  Paynter.  When  did  this  occur? 

The  Witness.  Somewhere  last  July  or  the  1st  of  August.  I  paid 
no  attention  to  it.  He  came  in  and  asked  me  to  go  over,  and  I  went 

over. 


396  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER, 

Senator  Burrows.  The  objection  will  be  sustained. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Any  other  witness  here? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understand  there  is  no  other  witness  here.  Two 
of  the  witnesses  who  have  already  testified  I  desire  to  recall,  then 
Mr.  Browne,  Mr.  English,  Mr.  Broderick,  and  Mr.  Wilson.  These 
three  witnesses,  and  I  desire  that  the  committee  consent  that  I  may 
withhold  the  testimony  of  Governor  Deneen  until  rebuttal,  inasmuch 
as  it  may  not  be  necessary  to  call  him,  and  we  would  thereby  save 
considerable  time.  Unless  counsel  on  the  other  side  expects  to  prove 
what  he  said  he  would  a  number  of  times,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to 
call  him.  If  it  is,  we  will  call  him  in  rebuttal.  I  think  with  these 
witnesses  on  hand  Monday,  if  they  are  all  subpoenaed,  we  can  get 
through  with  our  side  of  the  case  by  2  o’clock. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  about  Mr.  Isley? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  will  be  a  witness  on  rebuttal. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Isley  is  on  rebuttal. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  he  present? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  Mr.  Wilson,  Mr.  Browne,  and  Mr.  Brod¬ 
erick  been  subpoenaed,  and  are  they  present? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don't  know  what  the  chair  has  done  about  Mr. 
Browne.  If  he  is  not  found  before  we  close  our  case,  we  shall  ask 
leave  to  put  him  on  when  he  is  found,  and  the  same  with  Mr.  Brod¬ 
erick  and  Mr.  Wilson.  I  would  not  ask  that  the  case  be  held  open, 
but  ask  the  right  to  put  them  on  as  a  part  of  our  case  when  they  are 
found. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  me  ask  you,  Mr.  Austrian,  is  Mr.  Ford 

here  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Ford  and  Mr.  Murray,  under  the  ruling  of 
the  committee,  would  not  be  competent  witnesses.  Mr.  Ford  and 
Mr.  Murray  would  testify  to  the  same  facts. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  expect  to  show  the  same  thing  by  Thomas 
F  ord. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Ford  and  Mr.  Murray  are  to  the  same  effect. 

Senator  Gamble.  A  subpoena  has  been  served  on  Mrs.  Luke. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  want  her. 

Senator  Burrows.  How  about  John  Walker? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  is  in  rebuttal. 

Senator  Burro'ws.  And  Mr.  Aldrich? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Aldrich  wfill  be  in  rebuttal. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  report  is  that  Mr.  Broderick  can  not  be 
found. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  is  the  matter  with  Mr.  Groves? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  can  not  be  here  until  Monday.  I  desire  to  put 
Mr.  Groves  on.  I  think  the  sergeant-at-arms  has  a  telegram  from 
Mr.  Groves  that  he  would  be  here  Monday. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  want  to  call  Mr.  Groves,  Mr.  Broderick, 
W.  J.  Bradford - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Groves,  Mr.  Browne,  Mr.  Broderick,  Mr.  Wil¬ 
son,  and  English.  I  shall  recall  Mr.  Beckemeyer  and  Mr.  White, 
and  Mrs.  Luke  I  will  want. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Groves,  Browne,  Broderick,  White,  Mrs.  Luke, 
and  Isley. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  397 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Isley  is  rebuttal  and  Mr.  Deneen  is  rebuttal. 

J udge  Hanecy.  What  about  Mr.  Paddock  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  call  him  to  prove  the  record. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  not  necessary. 

J  udge  Hanecy.  I  didn’t  know  but  what  you  wrantecl  to  prove  some¬ 
thing  else  by  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  say  this:  I  have  put  a  party  to  work  on 
the  official  record  of  the  house  journal  and  senate  journal,  to  mark 
the  names  of  the  different  parties.  He  tells  me  that  it  will  be  a  very 
difficult  thing  to  put  a  mark  in  front  of  each  man’s  name,  on  each 
ballot,  and  suggests  that  he  make  a  list  of  all  the  Democrats  in  one 
list  with  the  Republicans  in  that  house,  and  that  they  have  that  as  a 
key  to  the  journal  of  the  house  and  senate. 

Senator  Burrows.  Can’t  counsel  agree  on  the  political  affiliations? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  what  I  am  talking  about.  Mr.  Austrian 
and  I  can  agree  on  the  political  affiliations,  but  how  can  we  convey 
that  evidence  to  this  honorable  committee  in  this  record.  That  is 
what  I  was  going  to  ask ;  why  we  can  not  file  a  list  of  the  Republicans 
and  a  list  of  the  Democrats  in  each  house,  together  with  the  pages 
of  the  journals  of  the  house  and  senate? 

Senator  Paynter.  Why  can  not  counsel  say  it  is  agreed  by  coun¬ 
sel  that  the  following-named  persons  were  Republicans  and  the  fol¬ 
lowing-named  persons  Democrats? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  give  counsel  a  list  of  the  Republicans  and 
Democrats,  and  he  can  compare  them,  and  if  it  is  not  accurate  he  can 
correct  it. 

J  udge  Hanecy.  We  can  agree  about  that,  but  how  can  we  convey 
that  knowledge  to  this  committee.  Then  we  will  have  from  the 
printed  record  of  the  printed  journal  of  the  house  and  senate  every 
vote  that  was  cast  there,  and  then  attach  this  to  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  would  cover  about  150  printed  pages. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  will  all  be  printed  and  go  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  no  objection  to  that,  but  we  are  trying  to 
save  expense. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  think  the  simplest  way  is  to  do  it  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  agree  to  anything. 

.  Senator  Paynter.  This  is  four  or  five  or  six  times  that  this  ques¬ 
tion  has  been  up,  and  if  counsel  do  not  agree  we  will  have  to  take 
notice  of  the  journal  whether  in  the  record  or  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  can  prejiare  a  statement  on  a  page  giving  a 
resume  of  this  whole  thing. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  can  not  consent  to  anything  except  the  journal. 

I  will  agree  to  the  list  of  names  of  Republicans  and  Democrats  in 
each  house  and  have  that  attached  to  the  journal. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  told  you  what  witnesses  I  wanted  to  call 
Monday;  the  others  are  in  rebuttal. 

Senator  Gamble.  What  witnesses  do  you  want  to  call? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  call  Messrs.  Groves,  Browne,  Broderick 
Wilson,  if  subpoenaed  by  that  time,  English,  Beckemeyer,  White,  and 
Mrs.  Luke.  I  may  have  overlooked  one,  and  if  I  have  I  will  ask  to 
have  them  produced. 

Senator  Frazier.  The  sergeant-at-arms  will  summon  Mr.  White. 


398  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  When  was  a  subpoena  sent  for  Mr.  Browne? 

Sergeant- at- Arms.  I  think  night  before  last.  Mr.  Groves  has 
been  subpoenaed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  How  about  Mr.  English? 

Sergeant- at- Arms.  He  has  not  been  served  with  a  subpoena ;  Mr. 
Groves  has  been. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Didn’t  you  get  a  reply  from  him  ? 

Sergeant-at-Arms.  Xo,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Has  anyone  gone  to  get  him  ? 

Sergeant-at-Arms.  Xo,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Has  Mr.  Isley  been  subpoenaed? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  has  not.  I  think  Mr.  English  will  come  on  a 

telegram. 

Senator  Burrows.  Telegraph  Mr.  English. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  English  has  not  been  served  ? 

Sergeant-at-Arms.  Xo,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Get  into  communication  with  these  witnesses 
that  have  not  been  subpoenaed,  or  subpoena  them. 

Sergeant-at-Arms.  T  will  do  so  immediately. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  them  here  Monday  morning. 

Senator  Frazier.  Have  you  made  your  return  on  the  subpoenas 
for  Wilson,  Broderick,  and  Browne? 

Sergeant-at-Arms.  That  we  were  not  able  to  find  them. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  report  is  that  Mr.  Wilson  is  in  a  sanitarium 
at  Milwaukee  and  the  other  that  he  is  in  Texas  buying  land. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  did  not  represent  Mr.  Wilson  in  any  way,  but 
an  effort  was  made  by  the  state’s  attorney  to  forfeit  his  bond.  He 
was  indicted  in  court  during  the  last  Browne  trial,  and  they  tried 
to  serve  a  subpoena  on  him,  and  it  appeared  there  in  the  public 
records  that  Wilson  was  nearly  blind;  and  the  state’s  attorney  put 
Wilson’s  case  on  trial  during  the  summer  vacation  before  Judge 
Honore,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the  bond  forfeited  because  he  did 
not  appear.  His  attorney  appeared  there  and  showed  Judge  Honore 
that  he  was  sick  and  his  eyes  were  affected,  and  that  he  was  blind, 
or  nearly  so,  and  was  in  a  sanitarium  or  some  place  for  treatment 
for  his  eves,  and  the  court  refused  to  forfeit  his  bond  or  take  any 
action  in  the  matter. 

Senator  Frazier.  Have  you  any  information  where  he  is  now  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Xot  the  slightest.  I  only  know  that  from  what 
occurred  the  first  part  of  September  last.  It  has  been  stated  that 
he  was  in  Milwaukee  by  Mr.  Austrian.  If  so,  he  can  be  served  with¬ 
out  difficulty. 

Mr.  Austrian.  His  mother  said  he  was  in  Milwaukee,  and  another 
report  is  that  he  is  in  Texas  on  a  land  deal. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  represent  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  some  of  your  associates  do. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  there  any  of  the  witnesses  here  now  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Xo. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  stand  adjourned  until  Mon¬ 
day  at  10  o’clock,  and  the  committee  would  like  to  have  counsel  re¬ 
main  a  few  moments  until  we  can  determine  about  these  witnesses. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  399 

MONDAY,  OCTOBER  3,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

At  10  o’clock  a.  m.  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  where¬ 
upon  the  following  proceedings  were  had. 

The  following  members  of  the  subcommittee  were  present :  Hon. 
J.  C.  Burrows,  chairman;  Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble,  Hon.  W.  B.  Hey- 
burn,  Hon.  James  H.  Paynter,  Hon.  Joseph  F.  Johnston,  and  Hon. 
James  B.  Frazier. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  to  recall  Mr.  Clark. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Clark,  take  the  stand. 

Joseph  S.  Clark  resumed  the  stand  for  examination  by  Mr.  Aus¬ 
trian  and  testified  as  follows: 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  on  last  Saturday  you  were  asked  the  question  found 
on  page  917  of  the  official  record: 

Q.  When  did  yt*i  make  up  your  mind  to  vote  for  Lorimer? — A.  It  was  Friday 
evening  or  Saturday  at  my  home,  previous  to  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Do  you  desire  to  correct  that  answer  ? — A.  I  do  not. 

Q„  Mr.  Clark,  you  were  interrogated  on  that  same  subject-matter 
before  the  grand  jury,  were  you  not? — A.  I  presume  so. 

Q.  Was  this  question  put  to  you:  “When  did  you  make  up  your 
mind  to  vote  for  Lorimer  ?  ”  and  did  you  make'  this  reply :  “About 
thirty  minutes  before  my  name  was  called.”  Was  that  correct  or 
svas  it  not  correct? — A.  I  made  up  my  mind - 

Q.  Will  you  please  answer  the  question?  Was  that  answer  correct 
when  made  or  was  it  not  correct? — A.  There  was  nothing  certain 
ibout  my  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  several  days  before  the  elec¬ 
tion,  but  I  became  conclusive  about  thirty  minutes  before  I  voted  that 
1  would  vote  for  him  before  the  roll  was  started  to  be  called. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  sir,  whether  or  not  the  question  as  I  read  it 
was  put  to  you  before  the  grand  jury,  and  whether  or  not  you  made 
the  answer  which  I  have  just  read? — A.  I  do  not  recollect  exactly 
what  was  put  to  me  before  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  Was  this  question  put  to  you :  “  Did  you  decide  to  vote  for  him 
Defore  the  balloting  started  ?  ”  To  which  you  replied :  “After  the 
oa lloting  started  is  when  I  first  made  up  my  mind.”  Is  that  cor¬ 
rect? — A.  When — I  thought  I  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  at  my 
Dome  several  days  before  the  balloting - 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  whether  or  not - A.  And  I  made  up  my  mind 

"o  vote  for  him  after  the  balloting  started. 

Q.  Then  when  you  stated  on  last  Saturday,  in  response  to  the 
question :  “  When  did  you  make  up  your  mind  to  Tote  for  Mr. 
Lorimer?  ”  and  you  answered:  “Either  Friday  evening  or  Saturday 
it  my  home  previous  to  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer,”  that  was  not 
correct  ? — A.  I  had  thought  that  I  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer - 

Q.  Was  it  or  was  it  not  correct,  that  answer  to  that  question? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit,  if  the  chairman  and  committee  please, 
ffiat  he  has  answered  that  substantially  as  well  as  he  can  remember, 
the  two  questions  are  exactly  in  the  same  words. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  two  questions  are  in  exactly  the  same  words — 
:he  question  put  to  him  last  Saturday,  “  When  did  you  make  up  your 


400  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOEIMER. 

mind  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?  ”  and  the  question  purported  to  be 
asked  before  the  grand  jury,  “  When  did  you  make  up  your  mind  to 
vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ?  ” 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  is  explaining  what  the  facts  are. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Was  the  answer  you  made  last  Saturday  correct? — 
A.  Possibly  it  was. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  I  believe  you  stated  that  you  had  no  talk  with  any¬ 
one  with  reference  to  your  voting  for  Mr.  "Lorimer,  and  that  you  did 
not  declare  to  anyone  that  you  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  Is  that 
correct? — A.  I  had  no  talk  with  any  person,  only  some  of  my  constit¬ 
uents  at  home,  with  reference  to  my  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  a  few 
days  previous  to  the  vote  being  taken,  or  possibly  a  week  before. 

Q.  You  did  not  tell  your  constituents  that  you  were  going  to  vote 
for  Mr.  Lorimer,  did  you? — A.  I  would  not  be  positive  on  that, 
whether - 

Q.  Didn’t  you  state  last  Saturday  that  you  did  not  disclose  to  your 
constituents - A.  I  don’t  think  that  I  did. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  state  last  Saturday  that  you  did  not  disclose  to  your 
constituents  or  to  anyone  else  that  you  were  going  to  vote  for  Mr. 
Lorimer? — A.  Possibly  I  did  not. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  whether  or  not  you  made  that  statement  on  last 
Saturday  under  oath  here? — A.  Ask  the  question  again. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  testify,  in  response  to  a  question  put  by  me  to  you, 
asking  you  whether  or  not  you  disclosed  or  stated  to  anyone  that  you 
were  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  prior  to  your  voting  for  him— 
didn’t  you  state  that  you  did  not  state  to  anyone  that  you  were  going 
to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? — A.  I  had  not  decided  in  my  mind  that  I 
would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  until  the  ballot  had  been  started. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  prior  to  your  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer — do  you  know 
John  A.  Bingham  ? — A.  I  do. 

Q.  Prior  to  your  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  did  you  have  any  dis¬ 
cussion  with  any  person  with  reference  to  the  appointment  of  John 
A.  Bingham  as  postmaster? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  At  no  time. 

Q.  Immediately  after  or  shortly  after  the  adjournment  of  the  legis¬ 
lature,  did  you  invest  any  money  in  or  make  any  purchase  of  any 
substantial  amount,  in  value,  of  jewelry? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  purchase  any? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Sure  of  that? — A.  I  am  sure  of  it. 

Q.  Not  for  yourself,  but  for  some  one  else? — A.  When  was  this? 

Q.  After  the  legislature  adjourned,  in  July  or  August. — A.  I  am 
not  positive  that  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  are  you  positive  that  you  did  not? — A.  The  only  jewelry 
that  I  have  bought  within  the  last  four  or  five  years  was  two  small 
diamonds,  which  I  believe  I  paid  $105  for. 

Q.  When  did  you  purchase  them  ? — A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it 
was  some  time  during  the  session  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly. 

Q.  Wasn’t  it  after  the  session  of  the  general  assembly? — A.  I  do 
not  think  that  it  was. 

Q.  Will  you  say  it  was  not? — A.  I  could  positively  say  my  mem¬ 
ory  is  not  clear  as  to  that.  I  can  tell  who  I  bought  them  of. 

Yes,  sir ;  who? — A.  Doctor  Alliston,  a  member  of  the  legislature. 

Q.  When  did  you  pay  for  them  ? — A.  I  took  them  home  to  be  ex- 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  401 

mined  and  brought  them  down  there  and  submitted  them  to  our 
sweler,  and  sent  my  personal  check  for  them  after  I  concluded  to 
eep  them. 

Q.  When  did  you  sign  your  personal  check? — A.  Well,  some 
me - 

Q.  Wasn’t  it  after  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature? — A.  I  could 
ot  say  whether  it  was  after  or  before. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  state  in  Vandalia  one  evening,  when  there  was  a  dis- 
ussion  in  reference  to  the  diamonds  in  question,  that  that  was  some- 
ling  you  got  out  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly? — A.  I  never 
lid  it.  My  opinion  is  that  I  bought  them  diamonds  before  the  ad- 
mrnment  of  the  legislature.  I  believe  my  wife  could  correct  that; 
le  is  in  the  building. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  did  you  make  a  trip  with  White  from  here  down  to 
our  home  one  day,  after  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature  in 
009? — A.  Either  July  or  August. 

Q.  1909?— A.  1909. 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  I  was  on  the  C.  and  E.  I.  train  going  home  from 
'hicago. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  with  him  anything  in  reference  to  the  distribu- 
on  of  money  during  the  last  session  of  the  legislature  ? — A.  I  did  not. 
Q.  Directly  or  indirectly? — A.  Directly  or  indirectly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Clark,  did  you  take  a  trip  with  Mr.  Browne 
nd  Mr.  White  some  time  after  the  15th  or  20th  of  June,  or  several 
rips  across  the  lake  ? — A.  I  did  not.  I  never  was  in  their  society  in 
ly  life,  only  in  the  general  assembly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  made  a  trip,  however,  on  the  same  boat  that 

Ir.  White  did,  to  Waukegan? — A.  I  accidentally  run  across - 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  whether  you  did  or  not. — A.  I  was  on  the 
oat ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  all. — A.  I  did  not  know  he  was  there,  though. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  did  not  go  with  him  ?  You  did  not  make  it 
nth  him  ? — A.  I  did  not  make  it  with  him,  I  ran  across  him  on  the 

oat. 

Q.  Mr.  Clark,  what  was  your  salary  and  mileage,  and  whatever  else 
s  allowed  by  the  State  as  a  member  of  the  legislature? — A.  My  sal- 
ry,  the  last  session,  was  $2,000;  $50  for  stationery,  and  my  mileage 
ras  about  $14  or  $15. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  twentv-one  hundred  and  some  odd  dollars? — A. 
\venty  hundred  and  some  odd  dollars,  and  then  we  got  something 
xtra  in  the  extra  session ;  I  do  not  know  what  it  was. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  When  did  you  draw  your  salary? — A.  I  drew  my 
alary  between  January  and  March. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  draw  it  all  in  January  and  the  first  part  of  Feb- 
uary? — A.  Possibly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

The  Witness.  Am  I  excused? 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  need  this  witness  any  more? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  need  him  any  further,  Mr.  Chairman. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 26 


402  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir;  may  I  have  Mr.  Beckemeyer  called? 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Beckemeyer. 

H.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer,  recalled  as  a  witness  herein,  was  examine 
bv  Mr.  Austrian,  and  testified  as  follows : 

Q.  You  have  been  a  witness  heretofore  in  this  investigation,  hav 
you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  the  same  H.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer  who  has  heretofore  bee: 
sworn? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  letter  which  I  now  hand  you  and  staff 
if  you  know,  whose  signature  that  is  [handing  letter  to  witness]  ? — A 
Robert  E.  Wilson’s. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  that  letter  through  the  mails? — A.  Well, 
guess  that  is  the  one.  I  do  not  know  whether  my  name  is  on  the  to 
or  not. 

Q.  Just  examine  it  again. — A.  I  did ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  'When  did  you  get  it? — A.  About  the  first  week  in  May. 

Q.  A  little  louder. — A.  About  the  first  week  in  May. 

Q,.  Of  what  year? — A.  1910. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  desire  to  offer  the  letter  in  evidence.  May 
read  it,  instead  of  the  witness?  We  offer  this  letter  in  evidence. 

It  is  dated  “  Chicago,  June  26,  1909,  on  the  letter  head  of  th 
Forty-sixth  General  Assembly,  State  of  Illinois,  house  of  represents 
tives.  Robert  E.  Wilson,  sixth  district,  1180  Perry  street,  Chicagc 
chairman.  Committee  on  retrenchments,”  and  so  forth. 

(Which  said  letter  so  offered  and  admitted  in  evidence  marke< 
“  1-R,  K.  F.  L.,  10/1/10,”  and  the  same  was  read  by  Mr.  Austrian  i: 
the  following  words  and  figures,  to  wit :) 

Chicago,  June  26,  1909. 

Hon.  H.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer,  Carlyle,  III. 

Friend  Beckemeyer:  Doc.  Allison  was  speaking  to  me  regarding  getting  u 
a  banquet  for  Lee  in  his  home  town,  Ottawa,  and  asked  that  I  take  matte 
up  with  some  of  the  boys.  I  expect  to  go  to  St.  Louis  in  the  near  future  in  coi 
nection  with  our  submerged  land  committee,  and  will  advise  you  in  advance  a 
to  when  I  will  be  there,  and  would  like  for  you  to  meet  me.  With  best  wishe: 
I  am, 

Very  truly,  yours,  Robert  E.  Wilson. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  I  understood  you  to  say  you  go 
this  letter  in  May,  1910,  or  about  May,  1910? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Prior  to  the  receipt  of  this  letter  did  you  have  any  talk  wifi 
Wilson  on  the  subject?. — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  what  talk,  if  any,  you  had  wifi 
him? — A.  With  reference  to  this  letter? 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  or  the  subject-matter  of  the  letter. — A.  I  met  Mi 
Wilson - 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  will  you  talk  a  little  louder  ?- 
A.  I  met  Mr.  Wilson  in  Springfield  some  time — I  do  not  know  th 
exact  date — the  last  of  April,  as  well  as  I  can  remember. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  was  it  after - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  the  witness  being  led. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  no  desire  to  lead  him.  Go  ahead. — A.  How 
ever,  it  was  before  the  White  story  was  published  in  the  Tribune;  jus 
shortly  before  that,  however.  I  do  not  remember  much  being  sai< 
about  this  letter,  except,  I  think,  possibly  he  asked  me  the  ques 
tion - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  the  witness  speculating. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  403 

Mr.  Austrian.  Give  your  best  recollection  what  the  conversation 
vTas. 

J udge  Hanecy.  If  he  has  a  recollection,  I  submit  he  ought  to  give 
t,  and  he  should  not  be  permitted  to  guess  or  speculate,  after  talking 

Ihe  matter  over  with  different  parties  interested  and  having  him  tell 
certain  story.  I  have  no  objection  to  him  telling  anything  that  he 
emembers,  but  I  do  object  to  him  speculating. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  tell  the  conversation? — A.  I  do  not 
mow  that  I  can  state  the  exact  conversation. 

Senator  Burrows.  Then  state  the  substance  of  it. — A.  It  was  as  to 
he  advisability  of  sending  out  this  kind  of  a  letter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  after  that  conversation  in  Spring- 
ield  with  Mr.  Wilson,  did  you  receive  that  letter? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  will  you  tell  the  committee  how  you  happened 
o  meet  Mr.  Wilson  in  Springfield  ? — A.  I  met  him  by  appointment. 

Q.  Was  that  after  Tierney  and  White  had  been  to  see  you? _ A. 

res,  sir. 

Q.  And  when  had  Tierney  and  White  been  to  see  you?— A.  I  do 
ot  remember  the  exact  date. 

Q.  Approximately,  give  your  best  recollection  as  to  the  time.— A. 
ibout  ten  days  before  the  story  was  published,  or  such  a  matter. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  you  told  this  committee  that  you  had  seen 
Irown  in  St.  Louis  on  the  21st  of  June,  as  I  recall  it,  1909? _ A.  Yes 

ir. 

Q.  That  is  the  occasion,  I  believe,  you  testified  when  vou  received 
he  $1,000? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q*  ^  hen  you  were  in  St.  Louis  on  that  occasion,  did  you  see  Henrv 
l.  Shephard  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Joseph  Clark,  the  witness  who  has  just  been  on 
ie  stand,  at  Centralia? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  how  you  happened  to  meet 
ir.  Clark  at  Centralia — first,  when  did  you  meet  him  there? — A. 
Tell,  it  was  after  my  trip  to  Springfield,  and  before  the  White  story 
as  published. 

Q.  Xow,  will  you  tell  the  committee  how  you  happened  to  meet  him 
lere  ? — A.  Why,  I  met  him  there  by  appointment. 

Q.  Tell  the  committee  what,  if  any,  conversation  you  had  with  Mr. 
dark  on  that  occasion? — A.  Well,  the  conversation  that  we  had  was 
rincipally  as  my  advising  with  Mr.  Clark  as  to  the  advisability  of 
le  testifying  that  I  was  not  in  St.  Louis  on  the  15th  of  July,  he'and 
Ir.  Wilson  being  the  only  two  that  I  remember  being  down  there,  and 
Ir.  Luke. 

Q.  What  did  Mr.  Clark  say?— A.  He  agreed  that  it  might  be  all 
ight. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  with  reference  to  his  part  in  the  transac- 
on? — A.  No;  I  do  not — there  was  nothing  said  about  that  at  all. 
seen  him,  but  I  did  not  talk  to  him. 

Examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  you  just  told  this  honorable  committee  that 
on  didn’t  remember  anybody  that  you  met  at  Springfield  except  Mr. 

Vilson  and  Clark;  that  is  right,  isn’t  it? — A.  Well - 

Q.  That  is  just  what  you  said? — A.  Yes;  I  think  that  is  correct. 


404  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Now.  you  did  testify  here  when  you  were  on  the  witness  stanc 
before  that  you  met  Wilson  and  Clark  and  Shephard  and  Y  hite  - 

Senator  Frazier.  Are  you  speaking  of  Springfield  or  St.  Louis 

You  used  the  word  “  Springfield.” 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  meant  St.  Louis.  I  thank  you,  Senator  Frazier 

Q.  In  your  testimony  here  before  you  said  that  you  met  Wilson  am 
Shephard  and  White,  and  I  think  some  others,  Luke,  didn  t  you  ?— 
A.  I  think  my  testimony  will  show  that  I  met -  #  I 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  what  it  will  show.  I  am  asking  you  if  that  i 
not  what  you  said  before  ? — A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Well,  now,  what  did  }rou  mean  when  you  just  said  a  few  mo 
ments  ago  that  at  the  time— at  that  time  you  do  not  remember  havin' 
met  anybody  but  Wilson  and  Clark  at  St.  Louis? — A.  I  do  not  re 
member  meeting  any  one  there  except  A  ilson  and  C  lark  and  Mil 
Luke  on  the  15th  of  July  except— that  is,  at  the  hotel— except  on  th 
street  I  met  Mr.  White. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  not  separate  it  in  that  way  when  you  were  on  th 
witness  stand  before,  did  you  ? — A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  I  di< 
or  not. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  say  when  on  the  witness  stand  here  last  week  tha 
you  also  met  Shephard? — A.  No;  I  met  Shephard  on  a  difteren 
occasion. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  you  met  him  on  that  occasion  ?— A.  no;  1  d 
not  think  I  did. 

Q.  Who  was  it  that  suggested  to  you  the  things,  the  men  that  yo 
did  not  remember  that  you  met  in  St.  Louis? — A.  There  wasn  t  am 
body,  any  necessity  of  anybody  suggesting  anything  to  me. 

Q.  When  on  the  witness  stand  before,  you  testified  that  you  mt 
more  men  than  you  told  here  this  morning  you  met  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  Counsel  is  making  a  speech  as  to  a  fa( 

which  is  not  in  evidence. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  a  fact,  isn’t  it?— A.  It  is  not;  no,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  not?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  mean  when  you  said  here  a  moment  ago  that  vo 
did  not  remember  anybody  but  T\  hite — but  Clark  and  TV  ilson  ?  A. 
do  not  remember  meeting  anyone  else  there.  That  is  the  reason 
made  that  statement. 

Q.  And  if  you  stated  that  you  met  anyone  else  there,  those  oth( 
names  were  suggested  to  you  by  somebody  else? — A.  Nobody  su< 
gested  them.  I  do  not  think  I  ever  stated  that ;  if  I  did,  I  ai 

mistaken.  .  c 

Q  Well,  do  vou  remember  now  that  you  met  anybody  else  in  o 

Louis  except  Wilson  and  Clark?— A.  Not  of  these  parties  we  hai 
been  talking  about — Wilson,  Clark,  and  Mr.  Luke. 

Senator  Frazier.  What  date  do  you  refer  to?— A.  The  15th  da 
of  July  is  all  I  can  remember  of  meeting  there  that  day  was  M 
Clark  and  Mr.  Luke,  and  on  the  21st  the  only  parties  I  met  we: 
Mr.  Brown  and  Mr.  Shephard. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  21st  of  June? — A.  The  21st  of  June;  yes,  si 
I  think  that  is  the  wav  I  stated  it  all  the  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Who  asked  you— who  asked  for  the  appointing 
between  you  and  Mr.  Clark  at  Centralia  ? — A.  It  was 

Q.  Did  you?— A.  It  was  done  at  my  request. 

Q.  Yes.  You  wrote  to  Clark  and  asked  him  to  meet  you  at  Cei 
tralia? — A.  No;  it  was  done  by  telephone. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  405 


Q.  And  what  did  Clark  tell  you  ? — A.  He  said  he  would  be  there. 
Q.  Did  you  ask  him  to  meet  you  at  some  other  place? — A.  No;  I 
sked  him  to  meet  me  at  Centralia. 

Q.  And  didn't  he  tell  you  he  had  to  go — didn’t  you  say  to  him  you 
rere  going  to  some  funeral  at  Centralia? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  not  he  say  he  was  going  on  some  business? — A.  Well, 
never  talked  to  him  over  the  phone. 

Q.  Didn’t  he  tell  you  when  you  asked  him  to  meet  you  at  Cen- 
ralia  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  said  he  did  not  talk  to  him  on  the  phone. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Who  did? — A.  Mr.  Schutte. 

Q.  Somebody  for  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  WThere  did  you  meet  Clark  when  on  your  way  to  Centralia? — 
l.  On  the  train  between  Sandoval  and  Centralia. 

Q.  And  you  wrote  him  to  come  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  went  to  the  funeral? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  went  to  see  somebody  else;  he  didn’t  go  to  the  funeral? — 
l.  No;  I  do  not  think  that  he  did.  In  fact,  I  know  he  did  not  go  to 
le  funeral. 

Q.  You  said  you  went  down  with  Tierney  to  certain  places,  did 

ou  not? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object;  the  witness  has  not  so  stated  that  he  went 
3  Tierney  with  certain  places. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  did  not  say  that  he  went  to  Tierney  with  certain 

laces. 

Q.  Did  you  go  with  Tierney? — A.  I  did  not;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Tierney? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? — A.  In  my  home  towm. 

Q.  In  Carlyle? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  his  name  was  Tierney? — A.  I  did  not  know 

is  name  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  his  name  was  Turner? — A.  I  did  not  know. 
Q.  Well,  he  is  the  man  who  is  Tom  McGuire’s  detective,  isn’t  he? — 
l.  I  so  learned  afterwards;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  was  after  you  had  been  brought  up  here  to  testify  be- 
ore  the  grand  jury,  wasn't  it? — A.  No;  that  was  before. 

Q.  Before? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  did  you  go  around  with  Turner  or  Tierney  to  talk  to  any- 
ody  else? — A.  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Keep  your  voice  up. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  Turner  or  Tierney  say  what  he  went  there 

ar? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  he  went  there  for? — A.  Oh,  you  mean  what 
urner  went  to  ni}^  place  for? 

Q.  Yes;  that  is  the  place  that  you  saw  him? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Are  you  answering  other  questions  in  that  manner,  without 
igard  to  the  fact? — A.  I  do  not  get  your  question  now. 

.Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  will  you  read  the  question? 

(Question  read.) 

A.  To  Carlyle. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  place  he  went,  isn't  it? — A.  Yes;  I  know  what 
e  went  there  for. 

Q.  Is  Carlyle  the  only  place  that  Tierney  went  to  see  you? — A. 

res,  sir ;  the  only  place. 


406  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Why  did  you  ask  me  whether  it  was  Carlyle  that  I  meant? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  arguing  with  the  witness. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  not  arguing  with  the  witness.  I  am  asking 
him  to  tell  me  why  he  did  not  answer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  meet  him  at  any  other  place  than 
Carlyle? — A.  No  place  except  here  and  Carlyle. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  he  went  to  Carlyle  for? — A.  He  came  there 
to  see  me  to  know  whether  I  knew  anything  about  any  money  that 
had  been  used  in  legislative  work  at  Springfield.  These  were  the 
questions  that  he  asked  me. 

Q.  And  did  he  tell  you  whom  he  represented  ? — A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  did  he  say? — A.  He  said,  at  the  time,  he  represented 
Governor  Deneen. 

Q.  And  did  he  say  what  they  were  trying  to  do? — A.  I  do  not 
know  that  he  particularly  said - 

Q.  Well,  did  he  generally  say? — A.  Why,  he  said  they  had  evi¬ 
dence  on  the  matter  and  that  there  would  be  some  indictments  found ; 
1  think  that  was  all  the  statement  he  made  to  me. 

Q.  He  knew  that  at  an  early  period,  didn’t  he? 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  witness  can  not  tell  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  said  he  did. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  can  state  the  conversation. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  now,  will  you  go  on  and  tell? — A.  Well,  1 
think  that  is  about  all  the  conversation  we  had ;  it  was  very  short. 

Q.  What  was  the  date  of  that?— A.  Well,  I  do  not  know  the  exad 
date;  it  was  about  ten  days  or  such  a  matter  before  the  White  pub 
lication. 

Q.  That  is,  it  was  ten  days  before  the  30th  day  of  April? — A. 
Yes;  something  in  that  neighborhood. 

Q.  Didn’t — wasn’t  it  more  than  ten  days  before  that;  wasn’t  il 
twenty  or  thirty  days  before? — A.  No;  it  was  not. 

Q.  It  was  at  least  ten  days  before?— A.  Well,  such  a  matter;  ir 

that  neighborhood. 

Q.  And  it  was  more  than  twenty  days  before  any  indictments  wen 

found  here,  wasn’t  it? — A.  I  think  so;  yes. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  before  you  came  up  here  to  Chicago  on  th< 
subpoena  or  on  the  request  of  the  state’s  attorney  ?  A.  TV  ell,  I  dc 
not  remember  the  exact  date,  but  it  was  about  a  week  after  the  pub 
lication,  or  such  a  matter. 

Q.  Then,  you  came  up  here  about  a  week  after  the  publication  .— 
A.  You  mean  when  I  was  subpoenaed  to  be  here  to  appear  befon 
the  grand  jury. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  after  Turner  or  Tierney  was  down  there  a 
Carlyle  and  had  this  talk  with  you  did  you  come  up  here  on  the  sub 
poena  or  request  to  go  before  the  grand  jury  of  the  states  attoine) 
of  this  county? — A.  That  was  about  fifteen  or  twenty  days  after  - 
met  Mr.  Tierney. 

Q.  About  twenty  days,  wasn’t  it,  or  more?— A.  Well,  I  will  sa? 
fifteen  or  twenty ;  I  would  not  say  the  exact  number 

Q.  How  long  was  Tierney  at  Carlyle?— A.  Only  a  few  hours. 

Q.  Was  he  with  you  all  that  time? — A.  No. 

Q.  How  long  was  he  talking  to  you  about  this  matter? — A.  Abou 
ten  minutes. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  407 


Q.  How  did  he  come  to  tell  you  that  he  represented  Governor 
Deneen? — A.  I  think  that  was  the  first  statement  that  he  was  in¬ 
vestigating  this  matter  for  Governor  Deneen,  and  that  he  wanted 
to  know  all  I  knew. 

Q.  What  matter  did  he  say  he  was  investigating  for  Governor 
Deneen  ? — A.  I  think  he  used  the  term  “  legislative  corruption,”  or 
something  of  that  kind,  I  would  not  be  sure. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer? — • 
A.  Well,  he  possibly  did;  yes. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  that  he  did? — A.  Yes;  I  know  he  did. 

Q.  Yes;  you  know  he  did.  And  is  not  that  one  of  the  first  things 
that  he  said? — A.  Well,  I  would  not  be  sure  about  that. 

Q.  Didn’t  he  say  to  you  that  he  was  down  there  to  investigate  that 
matter  for  Governor  Deneen  and  that  he  wanted  to  know  whether 
anybody  had  received — had  paid  or  had  received  any  money  on 
account  of  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — 
A.  Well,  I  would  not  be  sure  but  what  he  did. 

Q.  Well,  you  know  he  did? — A.  I  would  not  be  positive  about 
that. 

Q.  Is  not  that  your  best  recollection,  that  he  did  say  that  to  you? — 
A.  Well,  my  best  recollection  is  that  he  wanted  to  know  about  the 
legislative  corruption,  corruption  that  was  going  on;  that  is  my 
recollection. 

Q.  Is  not  it  your  best  recollection  that  he  said  to  you  that  he 
wanted  to  find  out  for  Governor  Deneen  whether  any  money  had 
been  paid  by  anybody  or  received  by  anybody  for  or  on  account  of 
voting  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  No; 
I  just  told  you  what  I  thought  my  best  recollection  of  it  was. 

Q.  Didn’t  he  say  that  in  substance? — A.  I  do  not  remember;  I 
think  possibly  that  he  mentioned  Lorimer’s  name;  I  would  not  be 
positive  about  it,  but  I  think  he  did. 

Q.  Did  he  mention  Lorimer’s  name  in  any  other  way  than  as  a 
candidate  for  United  States  Senator  or  having  been  elected  United 
States  Senator? — A.  No;  it  was  not  possible  for  us  to  have  as  long 
i  conversation  as  you  have  mentioned,  because  we  were  only  together 
ten  minutes. 

Q.  That  is  not  what  I  am  talking  about. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  counsel  lecturing  the  witness;  that  is 
not  proper,  “  that  is  not  what  I  am  talking  about.” 

Judge  Hanecy.  Will  you  read  the  question? 

(Question  read.) 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  your  answer  to  that  question? — A. 
Not  that  I  remember  of. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  the  only  way  William  Lorimer’s  name  was 
used  in  that  conversation,  as  a  candidate  for  United  States  Senator 
nr  as  having  been  elected  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  think  so; 
yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  specific  act  of  legislation  talked  of  by  you 
nr  Turner,  alias  Tierney,  at  that  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  now  recall  in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  any 
piece  of  legislation  that  was  referred  to  by  Tierney  or  by  you  in  that 
conversation  that  was  the  subject  of  inquiry  or  investigation  by 
Governor  Deneen  or  by  Tierney,  alias  Turner? — A.  No,  sir. 


408  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  the  only  subject-matter  that  you  do  have  recollection 
about  is  the  election  of  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? 

Say  “  yes  ”  and  do  not - A.  Yes. 

Q.  Yes;  and  subsequently  you  went  with  Turner  or  Tierney  to 
other  places,  didn’t  you,  to  find  out  whether  anybody  else  knew  any¬ 
thing  as  to  the  election  of  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Sen¬ 
ator,  or  the  voting  by  anybody  for  William  Lorimer  for  United 
States  Senator? — A.  No,  sir;  I  never  went  with  Mr.  Turner  any¬ 
where. 

Q.  Did  you  not  with  some  other  officer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  go  with  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Turner  at  that  time  that  you  never  got  any  money 
for  voting  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I 
did. 

Q.  And  did  you  tell  Turner  at  that  time  that  you  never  received 
any  money  because  you  had  voted  for  William  Lorimer?— A.  Yes, 
sir ;  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  truth,  wasn’t  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  not  the  truth  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  called  in  here  to  Chicago  afterwards,  weren’t  you?— 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Witness,  it  is  impossible  to  hear  you. 

The  Witness.  I  will  talk  louder;  I  will  try  to. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  you  told  the  state’s  attorney  and  the  granc 
jury  the  same  thing  you  told  Turner  or  Tierney,  did  you  not?— A 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Yes.  And  you  told  that  to  a  number  of  other  people,  didni 
you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  anybody  in  your  county  on  the 
question  of  you  having  any  influence  in  patronage  matters? — A.  1 
do  not  remember.  I  think  possibly  I  did. 

Q.  With  whom? — A.  Well,  I  do  not  remember  now  if  I  talkec 
with  anyone  about  it,  I  talked  about  it  to  other  associates,  witl 
possibly  Mr.  Shupe  or  Mr.  Murray. 

Q.  Who  is  Mr.  Shupe? — A.  He  is  a  newspaper  man  down  home 

Q.  Well,  did  you  talk  with  other  of  these  gentlemen  about  it?— 
A.  Well,  I  do  not  know,  I  do  not  remember.  Possibly  I  did. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  that  you  did?— A.  I  possibly  did;  yes. 

Q.  Well,  don’t  you  know  you  did? — A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  What  did  you  talk  with  them  about — about  patronage  in  you] 
county? — A.  Well,  I  do  not  remember  what  talk  we  had. 

Q.  What  was  the  substance  of  it  ?— A.  I  do  not  remember  that. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  anything  about  that  at  all  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  any  of  these  people  or  these  parties  or  anybody 
else  that  you  were  going  to  have  something  to  say  about  the  patron 
age  in  your  county  ? — A.  I  think  possibly  I  made  those  remarks. 

Q.  And  did  you  say  to  any  of  those  gentlemen  or  anybody  els 
there  that  that  is  the  only  consideration  that  you  ever  got,  or  ex 
pected,  for  voting  for  William  Lorimer? — A.  I  think  possibly 
made  that  statement ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  said  that  to  a  good  many  people,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes,sn 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  conversations - 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  409 

Judge  Hanecy.  Just  one  minute.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  Governor 
)eneen  about  this? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  ? — A.  Let  us  see  now.  I  do  not  remember  the  exact  date, 
ut  it  was  after  I  had  testified  here  before  the  grand  judy. 

IQ.  Where  did  you  talk  to  him  about  it  ? — A.  I  did  not  say — I  did 
ot  talk  about  this  matter;  no.  I  called  on  Governor  Deneen  and 
sked  him  what  he  thought  about  my  advisability  of  resigning  the 
igislative  office. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  to  resign? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  No;  you  told  him  at  that  time  what  you  had  said  about  receiv- 
i g  money  from  Browne  and  Wilson  ? — A.  I  never  talked  to  the  gov- 

rnor  about  that  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  Governor  Deneen  after  you  had  made  the 
tatement  privately,  or  publicly  or  generally,  that  you  had  received 
1,000  from  Browne  and  $900  from  Wilson? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  had 
liked  wfith  him  after  that. 

Q.  And  you  talked  with  him  after  the  publication — after  the  state- 
lents  had  been  published? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  So  he  knew,  if  he  kept  up  with  current  events,  that  you  said 
ou  received  $1,000  from  Browne  and  $900  from  Wilson,  and  he 
new  that? — A.  Oh,  yes;  he  knew  that;  no  question  about  it. 

Q.  And  you  talked  with  him  in  view  of  the  questions  as  they 
xisted  then? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  question  of  whether  you  should  resign  as  a  member  of 
tie  legislature? — A.  I  went  to  ask  him  that  question;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  told  you  you  should  not  ? — A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  What  did  he  say? — A.  He  told  me  to  ask  Mr.  Wayman’s  advice 
n  that  score;  that  he  would  have  nothing  to  say  about  it  directly. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  of  the  talk  that  you  had  with  Turner  or 
fierney? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  talk  about  that  to  several  people,  didn’t  you;  friends 
f  vours? — A.  You  mean  the  talk  I  had  with  Tierney? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  think  so:  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  Deneen  at  any  other  time? — A.  No,  sir. 
Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mi-.  Beckemeyer,  up  to  the  time  that  you  had  testi- 
ed  before  the  grand  jury  in  this  county  and  admitted  you  had 
;otten  $1,000  and  $900  did  you  say  to  anyone  you  had  been  bribed? — 
L  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  denied  that? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  those  denials  true  or  untrue? — A.  Untrue. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  did  not  hear  that  last. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  answer  was  it  was  untrue. 

Senator  Johnston.  I  want  to  ask  a  question.  This  letter  that  was 
hown  you,  you  say  was  dated  one  year  later? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Dated  in  1909  and  written  in  1910,  one  year  early? 
Senator  Johnston.  One  year  early. — A.  Now,  I  guess  it  was 
written  in  that  year;  I  received  it  at  that  time. 

Q.  It  came  through  the  mail? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  became  of  the  envelope? — A.  I  think  I  threw  it  in  the 
^aste  basket. 

Q.  Did  you  know  this  letter  was  antedated  when  you  received 
fc? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


410  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  the  envelope  was  material  to  establish 
that  fact? — A.  It  did. 

Q.  Why  didn’t  you  save  it? — A.  It  occurred  to  me  that  it  would 
be  material  at  that  time.  I  intended  to  use  the  letter ;  I  had  gotten 
it  in  1910  instead  of  1909. 

Senator  Frazier.  Is  that  the  reason  that  you  destroyed  the  en¬ 
velope? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  wanted  it  to  appear,  then,  that  the  letter  had  really  been 
written  in  1909  and  received  in  1909  ? — A.  I  did  at  that  time ;  yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  when  did  you  change  your  wishes  or  desires 
in  that  respect ;  was  it  after  you  were  indicted  or  told  that  you  were 
indicated  by  State’s  Attorney  Way  man? — A.  I  do  not  remember: 
some  time  after  that. 

Q.  Yes;  some  time  after  that.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all.  May  I  call  Mr.  Newton  ? 

Senator  Paynter.  I  want  to  ask  a  question.  You  were  asked  by 
Mr.  Austrian  a  moment  ago  if  you  were  bribed  to  vote  for  Senator 
Lorimer. — A.  I  admitted  that  to  him. 

Q.  In  response  to  his  question  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  did  not  mean  that ;  I  meant  for  the  payment  of 
the  $1,000. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  just  wanted  to  know  whether  you  desired  to 
change  your  statement  of  the  other  day  ? — A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  want 
to  change  that  whatever. 

Q.  As  to  that,  I  just  wanted  to  see  what  he  says. — A.  If  I  answered 
that  question  for  Mr.  Austrian  I  did  not  intend  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  meant  for  the  receipt  of  the  $1,000. 

Senator  Paynter.  You  received  that  as  a  bribe? — A.  Well,  I  can 
not  say  that  I  did ;  that  is  a  question  of  opinion  altogether ;  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  whether  it  is  construed  as  a  gift  or  a  bribe ;  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  You  do  not  change  your  statement  as  to  the  facts  you  made 
before? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Paynter.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  have  Mr.  Newton  called — a  very  short 
witness. 

Jarvis  O.  Newton,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  being  first  duly 
sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and 
testified  as  follows: 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name? — A.  Jarvis  O.  Newton. 

Q.  What  is  your  business,  Mr.  Newton? — A.  I  am  chief  clerk  of 
the  State  Bank  of  Chicago. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  on  June  16,  1909? — A.  The  same. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  paper  I  now  hand  you,  and  will  you  be 
kind  enough  to  tell  to  the  committee  what  that  is? — A.  That  is  the 
deposit  account  by  the  Holstlaw  Bank  of  Iuka,  Ill.,  in  the  State 
Bank  of  Chicago. 

Q,.  What  date? — A.  June  16,  1909. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  from  that  deposit  slip  how  that  deposit  was 
made? — A.  In  currency. 

Q.  How  much  is  it? — A.  Two  thousand  five  hundred  dollars. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  offer  the  deposit  slip. 

(Whereupon  said  deposit  slip  was  marked  “  Exhibit  1-S,”  and  the 
same  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  411 


[Exhibit  1-S.] 

K.  F.  L.  10-3-10. 

(Deposit  slip.) 

State  Bank  of  Chicago. 

Deposited  for  account  of  Holstlaw  Bank,  Iuka,  Ill.,  6/16,  1909. 

Currency  and  coin _ 

Checks  on  us _ 

Checks  on  other  towns _ 

Dollars _ Cents _ 

Currency - $2,  500 

Gold _ 

Silver _ 

[Rubber  stamp.] 

Note  teller, 

June  16,  1909. 

Checks  on  Chicago  banks _ 

P.  O.  and  express  orders _ 

_ Dollars _ Cents. 

[In  pencil]  cy 

Please  see  that  all  checks  are  properly  indorsed. 

[On  the  back,  in  pencil]  H.  N. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  receive  this? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  I  mean  the  deposit? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  the  slip  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  With  whom  have  you  talked  about  it  since  then? — A.  No  one 
tside  the  bank. 

Q.  How  did  you  know  what  they  wanted  you  for  here? — A.  That 
ntleman  came  over  there  from  this  committee  and  asked  me  to  come 
er  and  testify. 

Q.  Who  was  that? — A.  Mr.  Schlessinger. 

Q.  That  is,  from  Mr.  Austrian’s  office  ? — A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  The  State  Bank  of  Chicago  is  Governor  Deneen’s  bank;  he  is 
e  of  the  largest  stockholders,  is  he  not? — A.  He  is  a  stockholder, 
lit  not  one  of  the  largest. 

Q.  Is  he  not  one  of  the  largest  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  quite  sure  about  that? — A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  What  difference  does  it  make  whether 
I  ivernor  Deneen  is  a  stockholder  or  has  any  stock  in  the  bank  ? 
Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  has  answered.  Pass  on. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Gamble.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  Mr.  Holtslaw 
irsonally  deposited  this  money? — A.  He  did. 

Q.  On  the  date  named? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  received  it  from  Holtslaw? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  the  denominations  of  the  bills  or  anything  of 
I  at  kind? — A.  They  were  large  bills;  I  could  not  say  the  exact 
nominations. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don’t  know  just  how  to  read  that  into  the  record, 
r.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gamble.  Can’t  you  give  it  to  them  and  let  them  make  a 
tpy  of  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Very  well,  and  this  can  be  returned  to  Mr.  Newton. 
iat  is  all. 

(Said  exhibit  has  already  been  inserted.) 


412  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  to  call  Mr.  Broderick,  if  he  is  here. 

would  like  him  to  take  the  stand. 

Senator  Burrows.  How  about  Mr.  White;  he  is  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  that  will  be  satisfactory. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  White  will  take  the  stand. 


Charles  A.  White,  recalled  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  pre¬ 
viously  sworn,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and  testified  as 

follows : 

Q.  You  are  the  same  Charles  A.  White  who  has  been  heretofore 

sworn  in  this  investigation,  are  you  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  White,  did  you  have  any  talk  with  Joseph  S.  Clark  with 
reference  to  the  vote  of  Michael  Link  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ?  A.  T  es,  sir. 

Q.  When  ?— A.  It  was  along  last  summer. 

Q.  Where? — A.  The  talk  relative  to  the  vote  of  Mr.  Link  tor  Mr. 
Lorimer  was  on  the  train  going  from  Chicago  down  on  the  Chicago 
and  Eastern  Illinois. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  WTiite,  will  you  please  direct  your  answers 

this  wav?  ,  i 

O  Will  you  tell  the  committee  what  talk  you  had — what  you  said 

and  what  he  said?— A.  Mr.  Clark  told  me  that  Mr.  Link  was  willing 
to  vote  for  Lorimer  for  $500,  but  that  by  him  getting  Link  to  hold  out 

they  got  $1,000. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  was  gone  into  before. 

Mr.  Austrian.  But  it  was  stricken  out. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  like  to  call  attention  to  the  condition 
of  the  record  in  regard  to  that. 

Senator  Gamble.  Page  171. 

Austrian.  There  was  an  order  striking  it  out  as  hearsay. 
Senator  Heyburn.  The  ruling  is  page  177.  The  chairman  says: 


For  tlie  time  being  the  testimony  will  be  excluded. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir.  That  is  wrhy  I  am  putting  this  witness 

back.  That  is  all.  ,  ,  -  A 

Judge  Hanecy.  When  you  were  on  the  witness  stand  before^  did 

you  testify  that  Browne  dictated  the  letter  that  was  sent  to  the  Belle¬ 
ville  paper.  Mr.  Kearns’s  paper?— A.  Not  all  of  it- 

^  .  T WT  n  L  n  i-rn  Loon  Ql 


Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment.  T\  e  have  been  all  over  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  we  have  not.  .,  .  ,  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  beg  your  pardon,  I  recalled  this  witness  just tc 

answer  one  question,  Judge  Hanecy.  He  is  here  on  the  Belleville 
letter— to  the  Belleville  Democrat.  If  the  committee  does  not  care 
I  do  not;  but  I  do  not  want  it  charged  up  to  me. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Repeat  the  question,  please. 

(Question  read.)  .  ,  ,  ,  ,  ^  Q  *  T 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  Mr.  Browne  dictated  that  letter? — A.  1  saic 

that  he  dictated  most  of  it,  <  .  .  , ,  ,  ,,  ^ 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  you  dictated  the  entire  letter  and  then  sub 

mitted  it  to  him  after  it  was  typewritten?— A.  No;  I  talked  to  Mr 
Browne  about  it  first,  and  went  out  and  dictated  it  according  t< 
what  he  told  me,  and  then  I  brought  the  letter  m  and  he  mad. 
changes  in  it  and  I  went  back  and  had  it  changed  again 

Q.  And  didn’t  you  testify  in  the  trial  of  the  case  of  People  v 
Browne  that  you  dictated  the  letter  and  submitted  it  to  him,  and  h< 
made  changes" of  one  or  two  words  in  it? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  413 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that  as  not  material. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  I  will  proceed  with  another  question. 

Q.  Do  you  want  to  be  understood  by  this  committee  that  you  did 
not  know  Fred  Stermer,  as  you  stated  on  a  former  hearing,  or  former 
sxamination  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that.  We  have  gone  all  over  Stermer. 
[  just  called  him  for  one  examination. 

Judge  Hanecy.  1  will  recall  him  for  that,  if  you  want  me  to  go 
through  the  form  of  it. 

A.  I  said  I  met  Mr.  Stermer  there  frequently. 

Q.  No.  Did  you  say  you  did  not  know  him;  that  he  was  not  a 
friend  of  yours;  you  simply  met  him  through  Browne? — A.  That  is 
ill,  through  Browne.  Of  course  afterwards,  after  I  met  him  through 
Browne  and  we  ran  around  together,  we  had  some  talk. 

Q.  Look  at  this  envelope  and  say  whether  that  is  in  your  hand¬ 
writing. — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Look  at  the  letter  that  was  in  it  and  say  whether  that  is  in 
pour  handwriting,  including  the  signature? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I  did  that, 
lecause  I  had  met  him  through  Mr.  Browne,  and  Mr.  Browne  had  told 

ne - - 

Senator  Burrows.  You  have  been  asked  a  question,  and  just 
inswer  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  no  objection. 

Senator  Burrows.  Did  you  say  that  was  your  letter? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Stermer,  Briggs  House,  Fifth  avenue  and 
Randolph  street,  city,”  on  the  envelope,  is  in  your  handwriting? — 
Y  Yes,  sir. 

(Which  said  exhibit  last  above  referred  to,  marked  “  Exhibit 
L-Y,”  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  I-T.] 

K.  F.  L.  10-3-10. 

(Exhibit  in  two  parts,  consisting  of  envelope  and  letter.) 
[Envelope:] 

[Seal.] 

OBTY-SIXTH  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY, 

STATE  OF  ILLINOIS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

CHARLES  A.  WHITE, 

O’Fallon,  Ill. 

Mr.  Stermer,  Mgr. 

Briggs  House, 

City. 

ith  Ave.  &  Randolph. 

[Letter  head:] 

FORTY-SIXTH  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY, 

STATE  OF  ILLINOIS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Chicago,  2-6-10. 

Friend  Stermer:  I  would  like  to  ask  you  to  accommodate  me  with  the  loan 
>f  $10  for  a  few  days.  Up  here  with  a  couple  of  friends  and  run  short  of 

hange. 

Am  going  to  run  down  home  to-night  at  10.15  p.  m.,  will  be  back  Friday. 
Kindly  keep  this  quiet. 

Yours,  Chas.  A.  White. 

Am  down  at  the  Morrison  Hotel,  in  Room  C  6,  with  some  gentlemen  friends. 


414  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Mr.  Stermer  was  the  manager  of  the  Briggs  House? — A.  As¬ 
sistant  manager,  the  way  he  was  introduced  to  me. 

Q.  And  when  you  wrote  this  letter,  you  were  stopping  at  another 
hotel,  the  Morrison  House? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  knew  Stermer  well  enough,  while  you  were  stopping 
at  the  Morrison  Hotel,  to  write  him  and  ask  him  to  loan  you  $10  at 
that  time,  did  you  not? — A.  Mr.  Browne  had  told  him  if  I  wanted 
any  money,  either  to  get  it - 

Q,  That  is  not  what  I  asked  you.  Answer  the  question.— 
A.  Through  Browne,  yes. 

Q.  Did  Browne  ask  you  to  borrow  that  money  from  Stermer  ?— 
A.  No,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  stop  at  the  Briggs  House  frequently  wher 

you  were  in  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne  always  stopped  there,  didn’t  he? — A.  I  always 

knew  him  to  stop  there;  I  always  met  him  there. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  Mr.  Stermer  was  the  assistant  manager  of  the  Briggs 

House? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  been  on  these  trips  this  summer,  of  1909,  with  Browne 
and  Stermer  back  and  forward  across  the  lake  a  number  of  times,  hac 
you  not? — A.  Stermer  was  not  with  us  across  the  lake;  we  woulc 
meet  him  when  we  got  in. 

Q.  Whenever  you  were  on  that  trip,  you  went  to  the  Briggs  House 
either  before  or  after,  did  you  not?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  got  the  $10  you  asked  for  m  that  letter.  A 

Yes;  and  repaid  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  have  Mr.  Groves  called. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  Jacob  Groves. 

Jacob  Groves,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  dub 
sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and  tes 
tified  as  follows: 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name,  Mr.  Groves?— A.  Jacob  Groves. 

Q.  Will  you  kindly  address  the  Senators  over  here?  Mr.  Groves? 
where  do  you  reside? — A.  4  live  at  Camp  Point  in  this  State. 

Q.  Were  you  elected  a  member  of  the  legislature  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  ? — A.  I  was  elected  to  the  forty-sixth,  in  the  fall  of  190S 
Q.  A  Democrat  or  Bepublican  ? — A.  A  Democrat. 

Q.  And  a  member  of  the  house  I  take  it?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was. 

Q.  Were  you  in  Springfield  during  the  month  of  May,  the  greate 
part  of  the  month  of  May,  1909?— A.  Yes;  I  was  there  during  th 

legislature. 

Q.  The  joint  session?— A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q  Mr.  Groves,  do  you  recall  the  date  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Don 
mer,  which  is  conceded  was  on  the  26th  of  May  ?— A.  I  presume  i 
was.  I  did  not  keep  any  minutes  or  anything,  but  I  presume  it  wa 

thQ26Well,  it  is  conceded  it  was  the  26th  of  May.  1909.  That  is 
matter  of  record.  Did  you  vote  for  Lorimer  ?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  approached  to  vote  for  Lorimer  ? — A.  Y  es,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  this  committee  the  entire  transaction  ?— A.  1 
was  on  the  evening  before  Lorimer  was  elected.  There  was  a  gentle 
man  approached  me — that  is,  there  was  a  knock  at  my  door  and 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  415 

id  not  reply  at  first;  I  was  not  sure  that  it  was  at  my  door.  In  a 
ew  minutes  there  was  a  rap  at  the  door.  I  said,  “Who  is  there,” 
nd  he  said,  “A  friend.”  I  got  up  and  opened  the  door,  and  he  said 

bat  he  came  to  interview  me  on  a  matter - 

Senator  Heyburn.  What? 

The  Witness  He  came  to  interview  me  on  some  matter,  and  wanted 
le  to  keep  quiet  on  the  matter.  He  wanted  to  know  if  I  was  an 
)dd  Fellow — a  Mason  first — and  I  said  “  No.”  He  said,  “Are  you 
n  Odd  Fellow?  ”  I  said,  “Yes.”  He  said  probably  he  could  talk 
3  me,  or  something  of  that  kind.  I  don’t  know  what  the  words 
ere,  and  he  went  on  to  tell  me  that  there  was  40  or  42  Democrats 
oing  to  vote  for  Lorimer  the  next  day  for  United  States  Senator, 
nd  he  would  like  if  I  could  see  my  way  clear  to  do  the  same.  He 
lought  if  I  could  vote  for  him  that  probably  a  couple  more  would 
o  so,  and  he  would  like  to  make  it  unanimous  on  the  Democratic 
de  for  Lorimer.  And  he  said  it  might  be  a  good  thing  for  both  of 
s  if  I  would  do  so.  Well,  I  says  to  the  gentleman,  I  says,  “  I  am  not 
oing  into  any  such  deal.”  I  says,  “There  isn’t  enough  money  in 
pringfield  to  hire  me  to  vote  for  Bill  Lorimer.”  And  he  said,  “  I 
on't  mean  to  do  that;  I  do  not  mean  to  bribe  you  or  hire  you  to  vote 
3r  Lorimer;  you  don’t  understand  me.”  I  was  talking  terribly 
)ud,  and  he  said,  “Please  put  down  the  transom.”  The  transom 
'as  open  over  my  door.  I  said,  “  I  don’t  care  whether  the  transom 
?  down  or  not,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  and  I  don’t  care  who  hears 
hat  I  have  to  say  on  this  matter.”  And  he  got  up  and  walked  out, 
nd  he  said,  “I  didn’t  come  here  with  the  purpose  of  bribing  you 
hatever.  You  don’t  understand  me.”  And  I  was  talking  kind  of 
)ud,  and  he  went  out,  and  that  is  all  there  was  said. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  anyone  else  on  the  subject? 
Senator  Burrows.  Who  was  that  man? 

The  Witness.  That  man  was  Douglas  Patterson. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  was  Douglas  Patterson? — A.  He  was  at  one 
me  a  member  of  the  legislature. 

Q.  He  is  an  ex-member? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  a  member  of  the  last  preceding  assembly,  was  he  not? — 
No,  sir;  I  think  not.  I  can’t  say  whether  he  was  or  not. 

Senator  Gamble.  What  was  his  party,  Republican  or  Democrat  ? — 
!«  No;  he  was  a  Democrat. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  other  conversation  did  you  have  in  reference 
)  the  subject-matter? — A.  With  Patterson? 

Q.  With  him  or  anyone  else? — A.  Well,  there  was  two  or  three 
ooke  to  me  in  regard  to  the  matter. 

Q;  Who?  A.  Mr.  Henry  Tyrrell,  of  Colchester,  Ill.,  a  member 
i  the  house. 

Q.  Who  else? — A.  Homer  Shaw,  a  member  of  the  house,  and  Mr. 
>onaghue,  member  of  the  house. 

Q.  Is  Tyrrell  a  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Republican. 

Q.  Homer  Shaw,  Republican  or  Democrat  ? — A.  Democrat. 

Q.  Donaghue,  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Democrat. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  they  said  and  what  you  said  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  Just  wait  a  moment. 

A.  Yes,  the  matter - 

Senator  Burrows.  Wait  a  moment.  Would  it  not  be  well,  Mr. 
ustrian,  to  take  each  one  separately,  the  conversation  separately. 


416  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  State  what,  if  any,  conversation  you  had  with  Tyrrell?— A.  Mi 
Tyrrell  told  me  he  got  a  thousand  dollars  for  voting  for  Lorimer. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  move  that  be  stricken  out,  Mr.  Chairman  an< 
gentlemen ;  that  is  the  very  thing  that  they  have  tried  to  besmircl 
this,  case  with,  and  the  parties  interested,  and  I  submit  it  is  not  an 
more  competent  than  White’s  attempt  to  say  that  Clark  told  hir 
or  Luke  told  him  that  they  had  been  bribed.  When  they  are  aske. 
to  state  things  directly  they  state  things  indirectly  and  say  tha 
somebodv  said  to  the  witness  that  he  got  that.  I  submit  it  should  g 
out  of  the  record,  and  the  question  should  not  be  permitted  to  be  aske 
a o-ain  to  get  it  in  the  record,  even  for  the  purpose  of  striking  it  oui 
Senator  Gamble.  I  supposed  the  question  was  directed  at  what  ha 
occurred  prior  to  the  election.  I  did  not  understand  this  to  relat 

to  what  had  occurred  subsequent.  . 

Q.  Were  these  talks  prior  or  subsequent  to  the  election,  M 

Groves? — A.  Thev  were  after  the  election. 

Q.  How  long  afterwards?— A.  Well,  I  don’t  just  remember  ho' 


long  thev  were.  .  . 

Q.  About  how  long?  Was  it  before  the  session  adjourned s — A. 

think  it  was  during  the  special  session;  I  would  not  be  positive  aboi 
that.  You  know  we  had  a  regular  session  and  special  session  i 
1909 ;  I  think  it  was  during  that  session.  . 

Senator  Heyburn.  Have  you  that  date  of  the  special  session « 
has  been  referred  to  before  here,  and  it  would  be  convenient  to  have  i 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  find  it.  _ 

Senator  Burrows.  Was  this  conversation  after  the  election « 

The  Witness.  Yes.  #  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  conversation  with  Tyrrell  was  alter  the  ele 

tion  ? 

The  Witness.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  was  not  earlier  than  the  middle  ot  the  follow 
ing  December,  because  the  special  session  commenced  the  14th  of  tl 

following  December.  .  1  ,.  , 

!Mr.  Austrian.  Mv  recollection  is  that  the  legislature  adjourned  < 
the  general  session  on  the  4th  of  June  and  the  special  session  cor 
menced  on  the  14th  of  December ;  that  is  my  recollection.  . 

Senator  Frazier.  Is  that  conceded  that  the  special  session  beg; 
on  the  14th  of  December? 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  will  agree  to  that,  subject  to  correction. 


Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  that  is  so.  _  .  . 

Senator  Gamble.  How  long  was  the  special  session  in  session  ? 
Mr.  Austrian.  Xot  very  long;  I  think  two  or  three  weeks. 

The  Witness.  A  couple  of  months,  I  think. 

Senator  Gamble.  What  is  the  name  referred  to  as  the  member 

the  legislature? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Henry  Tyrrell.  . 

Senator  Gamble.  Is  Mr.  Tyrrell  living  at  this  time? 

The  Witness.  I  think  so.  ,  .  ,  .  ,  ~ 

Q.  And  still  a  resident  of  the  State?— A.  Yes;  his  home  is  at  C< 

cliester  Ill. 

'Q.  And  still  a  member  of  the  legislature  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 
Senator  Burrows.  The  committee,  in  conformity  with  its  preyio 
holdings,  holds  that  this  objection  is  well  taken.  The  full  committ 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  417 

rill  have  some  further  consultation  in  regard  to  it,  but  for  the 
>resent  the  committee  adheres  to  its  ruling. 

Mr.  Austrian.  TYe  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  subpoenas  issue  for 
lenry  Tyrrell,  Homer  Shaw,  and — what  is  Mr.  Donaghue’s  full 
lame? 

The  Witness.  Daniel  Donaghue. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  would  like  subpoenas  to  issue  for  them. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  kindly  hand  them  to  the  commission? 
Mr.  Austrian.  Certainly. 

Senator  Gamble.  Mr.  Groves,  were  like  conversations  had  with  the 
ther  two  members  of  the  legislature  to  whom  you  refer? — A.  Not 
s  positive. 

Q.  It  was  upon  the  same  subject-matter? — A.  The  same  subject; 

es. 

Q.  You  need  not  state  what  the  conversation  was.  As  I  understand, 
here  were  three  whose  names  you  have  already  given? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Were  there  others? — A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t  remember  of  any 
thers. 

Q.  And  this  occurred,  you  stated,  possibly  in  December,  1909  ? — A. 
Yell,  with  Tyrrell,  but  the  other  two  gentlemen,  I  think,  was  during 
he  regular  session ;  I  am  sure  it  was. 

Q.  During  what  time?— A.*  During  the  regular  session.  That  was 
ast  a  short  time  after  Lorimer’s  election ;  that  is  my  reason. 

Q.  With  Tyrrell  it  was  in  December? — A.  Yes;  at  the  special 
Bssion  a  year  later. 

Q.  Then  the  other  two,  the  conversations  were  with  them  during 
he  very  last  days  of  May  or  the  first  days  of  June,  1909  ? — A.  Of  the 
egular  session ;  yes. 

Q.  Just  toward  the  dose  of  the  regular  session? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Senator  Frazier.  Were  they  members  of  that  legislature? — A. 
res,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Then,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  suppose  the  same  ruling 
bat  this  honorable  committee  made  on  my  motion  to  strike  out  would 
pplv  to  the  repetition  of  it  on  the  questioning  of  Senator  Gamble, 
hat  is,  I  do  not  think  he  intended  to  have  it  repeated  and  put  into 
he  record  again,  but  he  said  “  similar  conversations.” 

Senator  Gamble.  All  I  meant  to  be  understood  was  that  this  evi- 
ence  would  be  directed  along  the  same  line.  It  was  a  matter  for  the 
iformation  of  the  committee  entirely.  I  did  not  want  him  to  state 
hat  the  conversations  were. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  but  the  question  was  “similar.”  And  that 
lentified  it  and  made  it  the  same.  I  suppose  the  ruling  will  be  the 
true  on  that  part,  that  it  is  not  competent. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  all.  But  I  ask  leave 
)  recall  this  witness  afterwards. 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. 

Senator  Frazier.  Are  you  through,  Judge  Hanecy? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  I  am  not  through.  May  I  proceed? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  proceed. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Donaghue  didn’t  vote  for  Lorimer  for  United 
tates  Senator? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Tyrrell  didn’t  vote  for  Lorimer,  did  he? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  Shaw  didn’t  vote  for  Lorimer,  did  he? — A.  No,  sir; 
either  one  of  them  voted  for  him. 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 27 


418  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Then  all  three  were  Democrats,  weren’t  they?— A.  No;  Tyrrell 
is  a  Republican. 

Q.  Tyrrell  is  a  Republican,  is  he.  Donaghue  and  bhaw  are  Demo¬ 
crats? — A.  Yes.  0  ,  T  • 

Q.  You  were  there  when  the  vote  was  taken  for  benator  Lorimer, 

weren't  you,  in  the  house? — A.  Jes,  sir;  I  was  there. 

Q.  And  members  of  every  faction  of  all  parties  did  vote  tor  \\  ll- 
liam  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator,  didn  t  they?  A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Some  of  the  closest  friends  of  Governor  Deneen  in  the  house, 
in  the  joint  session,  voted  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States 
Senator,  didn’t  they? — A.  I  don’t  know  as  to  that;  I  don’t  know 

whether  thev  were  his  close  friends  or  not,  . 

Q.  You  knew  W.  B.  Apmatamoc  was  one  of  his  closest  friends  ?— 

A.  No;  I  didn’t  know  that. 

Q.  You  knew  that  Chester  Church  was  a  close  friend  and  a  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  house,  from  Governor  Deneen’s  own  senatorial  district,  his 


home  district? — A.  Yes.  T  .  0 

Q.  You  knew  that  Chester  Church  voted  for  William  Lorimer  ?— 
A.  I  probably  did  at  that  time,  but  I  don’t  remember  now  whether 
he  did  or  not,  I  probably  did  know  that  day;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  knew  that  Mr.  Apmatamoc  was  a  friend  of  his,  didnt 

you? — A.  Deneen’s  friend?. 

Q.  Yes.— A.  No;  I  did  not.  . 

Q.  You  knew  Senator  Eccleston  was  a  close  friend  of  Governor 

Deneen’s? — A.  I  can’t  say  that  I  did.  „ 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  Senator  Billings  was  a  close  friend,  from 

the  first  senatorial  district  of  Illinois? — A.  No.  _  . 

Q.  You  knew  that  they  voted  for  William  Lorimer  ?—  A.  Rrobabh 
I  did  that  day,  I  wouldn’t  say  who  they  voted  for.  The  members  or 
my  own  side  of  the  house  and  some  Republicans,  I  know  how  thej 

V°Q^How  is  it  you  remember  the  very  things  that  Mr.  Austnai 
called  you  here  for  and  do  not  remember  other  things  that  are  equalh 
important.  Have  you  been  talking  with  him  or  somebody  on  that  side 
of  the  case?— A.  the  gentleman  over  there? 

Q.  Yes.— A.  No;  I  have  not.  .  0  .  __  T1 

Q.  Have  you  talked  with  anybody  about  it?— A.  les;  I  have. 

Q.  With  whom? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  who  he  was  now.  I  hi 
gentleman  here  [indicating  John  Callan  O’Laughlin].  . 

Q.  John  Callan  O’Laughlin,  of  the  Chicago  Tribune;  that  is  right 

is  it  not  ? — A.  I  don’t  know  wdio  he  is. 

Q.  Well,  that  man  right  there.— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  John  Callan  O’Laughlin.  When  did  you  talJ 

with  him? — A.  To-day. 

Q.  Where?— A.  In  this  building. 

Senator  Burrows.  Witness,  it  is  very  difficult,  to  hear  you. 

A.  In  this  building. 


By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  him  before  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  O’Laughlin? — A.  No,  sir.  7 

Q  Did  you  ever  see  him  before  he  came  up  and  addressed  you  — 
A.  Not  that  I  know  of.  I  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Nixon;  he  intrc 

duced  him  to  me. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  419 

Q.  By  whom? — A.  Mr.  Nixon,  the  sergeant-at-arms  here. 

Q.  Mr.  Nixon? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  conversation  did  you  have  with  Mr.  O’Laughlin,  of  the 
ribune  ? — A.  Well,  on  the  line  of  the  evidence  I  have  given  here. 

Q.  I  know,  but  won’t  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell  the  committee,  and 
e  can  probably  judge  as  well  as  you  whether  it  was  on  the  same  line 
r  not? — A.  Well,  I  told  him  that  Patterson  approached  me,  and 
hat  I  had  said. 

Q.  Well,  you  didn't  start  right  off  and  tell  him  that  until  he  asked 
ou  something,  did  you? — A.  No. 

Q.  Won’t  you  tell  us  the  conversation  ?  What  did  he  say  to  you  ? — - 
.  Well,  he  asked  me  about  who  it  was  that  approached  me  and  I 
>ld  him  who  it  was. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  thing  that  O’Laughlin  said  to  you,  to  ask  you 
ho  it  was  that  approached  you  ? — A.  I  think  it  was ;  I  don’t  remem- 
3r  just  exactly. 

Q.  Did  he  know  that  somebody  had  approached  you? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Who  told  him? — A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  that  he  knew  that? — A.  Well,  because  I 
new  by  his  conversation  that  he  knew  who  the  gentleman  was,  but 
had  never  told  him,  so  probably  some  of  the  state's  attorneys  had.  I 
ad  told  them  wTho  it  was. 

Q.  What  state’s  attorney  did  you  tell  ? — A.  Mr.  Burke. 

Q.  What  other? — A.  Well,  I  think  that  is  all. 

Q.  You  said  something  of  the  state’s  attorneys.  Did  you  tell  Mr. 
dayman,  of  Cook  County? — A.  No;  I  don’t  remember  of  it. 

Q.  Or  anybody  connected  with  his  office? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  any  state’s  attorney,  except  Mr.  Burke,  of  Sangamon 
ounty? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Is  that  right? — A.  Yes;  that  is  right.  Well,  I  told  the  state’s 
tornev  of  my  own  county;  that  is  the  reason  I  said  some  state’s 
itorneys,  who  the  man  was. 

Q.  You  did  tell  the  state’s  attorney  of  your  county? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  did  Callan  0‘Laughlin  say  to  you  and  you  say  to  him? — 

.  Well,  he  asked  me  about  who  it  was  that  approached  me  and 
anted  me  to  give  my  story,  and  ‘I  told  him  about  the  gentleman 
>ming  to  my  room  and  knocking  on  the  door,  and  I  failed  to  reply 
)  the  first  knock;  I  wasn’t  sure  it  was  my  room,  and  directly  in  a 
*w  minutes  he  came  back,  and  I  asked  who  was  there,  and  he  told 
ie  that  it  was  a  friend,  as  I  remember  it. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  O’Laughlin  everything  that  you  told  this  honor- 
ole  committee  here  ? — A.  I  think  so,  as  near  as  possible ;  as  near  as 

could  tell. 

Q.  And  what  did  he  sav? — A.  O’Laughlin? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Well,  he  didn’t  say  very  much  to  me  about  it,  only  to 
lank  me. 

Q.  Yes,  he  thanked  you.  Did  you  ask  Mr.  Nixon,  the  sergeant-at- 
rms  of  the  senate  and  of  this  honorable  committee,  to  introduce 
ou  to  O’Laughlin? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  How  did  Nixon,  the  sergeant-at-arms  of  this  committee,  hap- 
en  to  introduce  O’Laughlin  to  you? — A.  Well,  I  was  sitting  in  the 
)om  there,  and  he  said  there  was  a  gentleman  wanted  to  speak  to  me. 
Q.  Nixon  said  there  was  a  gentleman  wanted  to  speak  to  you? — 
..  Yes,  sir. 


420  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHAEGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  And  then  he  introduced  the  gentleman  that  he  said  wanted  to 

speak  to  you,  did  he? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  that  was  Mr.  O’Laughlm  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,.  Is  that  right? — A.  Well,  this  gentleman  here,  if  that  is  Mr. 

O’Laughlin. 

Q.  That  is  his  name;  yes. — A.  les,  sir.  . 

Q  Did  Mr.  O’Laughlin  or  anybody  else  say  to  you  or  indicate  to 
you  in  any  way  that  O’Laughlin  represented  this  honorable  com¬ 
mittee  in  getting  information  from  the  witness  before  they  got  it  .— 
A.  I  understood,  in  my  talk  with  O’Laughlin,  that  he  was  getting  the 
trend  of  my  evidence  here  for  the  lawyer,  this  gentleman;  that  is 
what  he  told  me.  He  wanted  to  know  about  what  I  was  going  tc 
testify,  and  fix  up  the  matter  so  the  questions  would  be  put  to  me 

along  the  lines  of  my  evidence.  ,, 

Q  He  wTanted  to  get  that  before  you  came  before  this  honorable 

committee  and  testified,  did  he?— A.  I  suppose  so.  I  supposed  at  the 
time  that  he  was  one  of  the  attorneys.  I  didn  t  make  any  inquiries 

who  he  was  or  anything  about  it ;  I  didn’t  know. 

Q.  Won’t  you  answer  my  former  question?  Did  he  say  or  indicate 
in  any  way  that  he  in  any  way  represented  this  honorable  committee 
in  asking  you  for  the  information  that  you  claim  you  gave  him  .— 

A.  I  don’t  think  he  did.  _  0  .  _  .  ,  , 

O.  You  thought  he  represented  somebody? — A.  I  thought  he  wa 

one  of  the  attorneys  here;  that  is  what  I  thought;  but  he  didn t  sa; 
he  was.  He  told  me  he  was  getting  this  evidence  to  get  it  shaped  uj 
for  the  attorneys,  so  they  could  use  it  when  I  came  on  the  stand. 

Q.  And  that  was  this  morning?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr  Austrian.  Mr.  Groves,  you  made  a  speech  with  reference  t 
this  same  subject-matter  and  with  reference  to  your  being  ap 
proached,  on  the  floor  of  the  house,  didn’t  you  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  published  in  all  the  newspapers?— A.  All  the  papei 

in  the  United  States,  I  guess.  .  ,,  Tt  *+n 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  Did  you  get  all  the  newspapers  m  the  Unite 

States*? — A.  Well,  I  say  I  don’t  know  but  what  it  was. 

Q,  I  don’t,  either,  and  I  don’t  know  anything  about  it.— A. 

don’t,  either.  __  , 

Q.  That  is  all  I  want  about  that.— A.  I  saw  a  good  many  paper 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  Mr.  O  Laughlin  ask  you  to  state  anythin 

except  the  truth?— A.  No,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to.  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  yes;  you  want  only  a  piece  of  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  I  want  it  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  O’Laughlm  anything  that  ws 
not  the  truth?— A.  No,  sir.  ,  . 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  there  exactly  what  you  testified  to  heief- 

A.  As  near  as  I  could,  using  the  same  language;  yes. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Groves,  when  this  man  Patterson  came  in 
your  room,  what  time  of  night  was  it?  A.  That  is  something 
could  not  swear  to  positively;  I  don’t  know.  I  had  been  aslee 

though.  .  .  . 

Q.  Was  it  early  in  the  evening  or  late  m 

thought  it  was  late.  T , 

Q.  Had  you  retired? — A.  Yes;  I  had  retired. 


the 


evening  ? — A. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  421 


Q.  Had  you  been  asleep  ?— A.  Yes ;  I  think  I  had.  I  am  sure  I  had. 
Q.  You  don’t  know  how  long  you  had  been  asleep? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Just  tell  again — I  didn’t  quite  catch  what  he  said — with  refer- 
nce  to  it  being  profitable  to  you  or  to  your  advantage,  both  of  you,  if 
rou  would  vote  that  way.  What  was  it  he  said?— A.  Well,  he  said 
t  might  be  a  good  thing  for  both  of  us. 

Q.  Might  be? — A.  Yes;  it  might  be.  I  thought  he  was  going  to 

aake  some  proposal,  and  I  told  him  I  would  not  go  into  a  deal _ 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that. 

Senator  Frazier.  What  did  you  reply  to  that?— A.  I  told  him  I 
wasn’t  going  into  any  such  deal  at  all. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  further  then  about  it?— A.  Yes;  I  said 
here  wasn’t  enough  money  in  Springfield  to  hire  me  to  vote  for 
fill  Lorimer,  and  as  near  as  I  can  remember  the  language,  he  said 
e  wasn’t  going  to  do  that;  he  didn’t  come  here  with  the  intention 
o  bribe  me ;  it  wasn’t  his  purpose  at  all. 

Q.  Then  you  made  a  speech  in  the  house  of  representati  ves  shortly 
hereafter,  in  which  you  detailed  this  matter  of  the  man  that  ap- 
roached  you  ?— A.  Yes ;  but  I  didn’t  use  the  name. 

Q.  You  didn’t  call  the  name,  but  you  detailed  the  facts  in  the 
ouse  of  representatives? — A.  Yes;  as  I  remembered  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  do  that  while  the  vote  was  being  taken  ? _ 

I  did  that  on  the  roll  call. 

Q.  When  it  came  to  you  on  the  roll  call? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  before  the  vote  was  all  cast  or  announced  for  United 
tates  Senator,  I  mean? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  and  all  the  other  members  of  the  joint  session  were  very 
red  of  that  session  and  wanted  to  break  the  deadlock  and  get  home, 
eren’t  you? — A.  I  can’t  say  anything  about  what  all  the  others 
anted ;  I  know  I  was  getting  tired  of  it. 

Q.  Wasn’t  that  the  general  expression,  whenever  there  was  any 
cpression  on  the  subject,  everybody  wanted  to  go?— A.  I  think  I 
eard  that  mentioned;  yes. 

Q.  And  the  joint  session  continued  longer  than  any  other  had  for 
great  many  years,  hadn’t  it?— A.  I  think  so;  yes. 

Q.  And  the  session  of  the  legislature  continued  longer  than  any 
;her  session  had  for  a  great  many  years  ? — A.  It  is  my  recollection 
lat  it  did,  but  not  very  much  longer. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Groves,  when  you  said  to  this  man  Patter- 
>n  that  there  wasn’t  enough  money  in  Springfield  to  hire  you  or 
ibe  you  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  was  it  at  that  time  that  he  requested 
>u  not  to  talk  so  loud  and  closed  the  transom? — A.  Yes;  about  that 

me. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Lorimer’s  name  had  been  discussed  as  a  prob- 
)le  candidate  or  as  somebody  that  people  wanted  to  become  a  candi- 
lte,  was  it  not,  for  some  time  before  that? — A.  I  think  I  heard 
s  name  mentioned;  not  very  often,  though. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  discussed  considerable,  was  it  not,  before  the 
>th? — A.  Not  very  considerable  in  my  presence.  I  heard  it  a  few 
mes,  but  not  often. 

Q.  Well,  for  some  considerable  time  before  the  2Gth  of  Mav 
m  heard  that,  did  you  not?— A.  Well,  I  couldn’t  say  that  I  did 

'J.  Well,  how  long  before  the  2Gth  was  it?— A.  I  heard  a  few  days, 
a  rumor,  you  know. 


422  INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LGRIMER. 


Q.  Was  it  a  week,  ten  days,  or  fifteen  days,  or  how  long?— A.  I 
won't  say,  but  I  don’t  think  it  was  a  week,  but  I  would  not  say  posi¬ 
tively  ;  that  they  were  going  to  elect  William  Lorimer  to  the  United 
States’ Senate.  I  didn’t  believe  they  would  do  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  witness  would  like  to  be  excused  and  go  home 
now/  He  will  return  upon  telegram,  if  he  is  wanted. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  you  are  released  now,  will  you  return  it  a 

telegram  comes  for  you?  . 

The  Witness.  If  I  am  able  to.  I  am  not  m  very  good  health ;  that 

is  one  reason  why  I  would  like  to  be  excused.  I  have  gone  down 

from  220  to  156  pounds.  0 

Senator  Gamble.  How  far  is  your  home  from  here  ( 

A.  My  home  is  241  miles.  I  will  come  back,  however. 

Senator  Burrows.  Can  you  remain,  without  any  inconvenience, 


until  to-morrow  ?  _  _  ,  ,  ,  , 

The  Witness.  Well,  I  think  I  could,  but  I  would  prefer  to  gc 

home:  I  have  some  fever  now. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  are  near  Quincy? 

The  Witness.  Twenty-two  miles  east  of  Quincy  5  }es. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Groves,  we  will  have  to  ask  you  to  reman 
until  to-morrow  and  make  yourself  comfortable,  and  it  maj  save  yoi 

another  trip  back  here. 

The  Witness.  All  right.  . 

Jdr  Austrian.  MAy  I  ask  what  other  witnesses  aie  here . 

Senator  Burrows.  I  understand  Mr.  Broderick  is  here. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Where  is  Mr.  English  ?  He  is  on  the  list  as  on< 

of  your  witnesses. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  English  here? 

Mr.  Nixon.  He  is  not  here,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  call  Mr.  Broderick,  Join 
Broderick. 


John  Broderick,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  dul; 

sworn  by  Senator  Burrows:  . 

Mr.  Dawson.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  will  permit  me;  my  name  1 
Dawson;  I  am  the  attorney  for  Mr.  Broderick.  I  would  like  to  mak 
a  statement  to  the  chairman  and  members  of  the  committee  wit 
regard  to  my  client.  He  is  here  in  response  to  your  subpoena,  and  ha 
been  willing  at  all  times  to  respond  to  it.  For  a  day  or  two  lie  ha 
been  trving  to  get  in  touch  with  me,  and  succeeded  only  Saturday  1 
doing  so.  I  represent  him,  in  connection  with  a  number  of  gentl* 
men  in  Springfield,  in  a  matter.  He  is  charged  there  with  briber 
in  connection  with  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer.  Mr.  Broderic 
appears  here  this  morning  willing  to  testify  fully  m  regard  to  t 
charges  made  by  Mr.  Holstlaw  or  anybody  else  with  reference  to  h 
promising  money  or  any  valuable  consideration,  or  the  giving 
money,  in  consideration  of  the  promise  or  obligation  which  it  h, 
been  alleged  he  made  to  Holstlaw.  He  is  willing  at  this  time  I 
answer  any  questions  put  to  him  with  respect  to  those  charges, 
as  his  attorney,  after  consultation  with  the  other  attorneys  in  t 
case,  and  realising  the  gravity  of  the  charge  m  the  indictment  dov 
there  that  he  has  to  meet  in  the.  very  near  future,  we  at  this  tin 
would  seriously  object  to  his  giving  any  details  m  connecti 
the  times  and  places  stated  that  Senator  Holstlaw  alleges  that 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  423 

;ave  him  the  money,  meaning  on  the  16th  day  of  June,  or  a  later  day, 
s  it  is  alleged.  I  think  this  would  be  disposing  of  his  defense.  The 
rial  is  not  on  there  yet.  It  will  take  place  in  the  near  future.  He 
Iso  is  a  candidate  and  has  been  renominated  for  the  position  he 
ow  holds  and  has  held  for  two  terms — senator  from  the  district 
tiat  he  represents. 

Now,  I  do  not  want  to  come  in  here,  and  I  won’t  advise  him,  and 
ounsel  do  not  feel  that  it  should  be  necessary  in  order  for  him  to 

irotect  his  rights,  for  him  to  stand  upon  any  constitutional  rights 
iat  he  has.  If  you  limit  the  inquiry  along  the  lines  I  have  suggested, 
e  is  ready  at  this  time  to  go  on  the  stand  and  state  fully  and  reply 
ully  to  the  charges  that  have  been  made  before  your  committee 
gainst  him. 

Senator  Frazier.  When  will  that  case  pending  in  Sangamon 
bounty  probably  be  tried  ?  When  will  the  court  meet  next  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  understand  from  the  information  that  I  have  ob- 
lined  from  State’s  Attorney  Burke,  of  Sangamon  County — I  was 
lere  last  week — and  from  his  assistant — he  happened  to  be  away 
’hen  I  arrived  there  and  was  down  here,  I  believe — that  that  will  be 
le  next  case  tried  after  the  disposition  of  the  Clark  and  Pemberton 
ise  down  there,  which  is  set  for  the  19th  of  the  present  month.  In 
11  probability,  it  will  follow  upon  the  trial  of  that  case. 

Senator  Gamble.  When,  in  the  ordinary  course,  do  you  think  the 
dal  of  the  case  will  be  disposed  of  there  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  should  imagine  it  will  be  put  on  early  after  the 
November  election,  from  the  best  information  I  can  obtain,  possibly 
le  9th  or  10th,  or  thereabouts,  of  November — probably  it  will  take  a 
reek  or  ten  days. 

I  would  say  this  further,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  he  is 
^ady  at  some  subsequent  time  to  tell  all  the  details  in  connection  with 
le  charges  pending  before  you  here  at  any  place  you  might  name, 
fter  the  trial  of  his  case.  But  our  reasons  for  this  is,  it  is  a  matter 
f  defense.  He  is  charged  with  bribery,  which  entails  a  punishment 
f  from  one  to  five  years  in  the  penitentiary,  and  we  feel  that  we  can 
ot  conscientiously  allow  him,  although  he  would  be  desirous  of  so 
oing,  to  go  on  and  testify  fully  here  this  morning;  that  in  the  per- 
irmance  of  our  duty,  after  a  consultation  with  the  other  gentlemen 
i  the  case,  that  we  would  be  remiss  in  our  duty  to  him  if  we  permit- 
id  him  at  this  time  to  testify  about  certain  details.  But  he  is  ready 
)  meet  this  charge — that  is,  namely,  whether  he  in  any  way  promised 
ny  money  or  any  other  valuable  thing  or  gave  any  money  or  any 
I  ther  valuable  thing  to  Holstlaw  or  any  other  man -in  the  legislature. 
Senator  Gamble.  That  part  of  it  he  is  entirely  willing  to  go  into? 
Senator  Heyburn.  Or  has  knowledge  that  money  or  other  valuable 
ling  was  given  by  another  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  lie  is  ready  to  meet  that  now. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all  we  are  investigating  here,  as  I  under¬ 
and  it,  and  I  do  not  see  any  exercise  of  any  constitutional  rights  at 
II ;  that  is  all  we  are  inquiring  about. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  ask,  What  is  the  reserved  question? 
Hiether  he  himself  received  money  or  not  for  voting  for  Lorimer? 
Mr.  Dawson.  Whether  he  promised  any  to  Holstlaw  or  gave  any  to 

Colstlaw. 

Senator  Heyburn.  That  is  not  reserved,  I  understand. 


424  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Dawson.  ]STo. 

Senator  Heyburn.  What  is  reserved? 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  is  ready  to  tell  whether  he  got  any  money,  too, 
isn’t  he? 

Mr.  Dawson.  He  is.  # 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  there  is  no  reservation  about  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  there  is. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  is  reserved?  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  he  does  not  want  to  be  interrogated  m  detail. 
There  lias  been  a  statement  made  here  that  on  or  about  the  16th  day 
of  June,  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  that  Mr.  Broderick  gave  Mr.  Hoist- 
law  $2,500  at  a  certain  place,  naming  his  place  of  business  m  Chi¬ 
cago.  Questions  might  arise  here  and  he  might  be  interrogated  rela¬ 
tive  to  various  matters  with  respect  to  that.  Those  details  at  this 
time  we  feel  that  he  should  not  be  compelled  to  disclose  because  of  the 

defense  that  he  has  to  make  down  there. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  make  a  suggestion  to  the  committee .  1 

can  not  get  clearly  into  my  mind  what  counsel  is  willing  to  have  the 
witness  answer  and  what  he  will  object  to.  Is  it  not  the  best  waj 
to  proceed  with  the  examination,  and  when  the  question  arises  tc 
allow  the  witness  to  avail  himself  of  his  constitutional  privilege  li 

he  has  one?  ,  .  .  ... 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  want  to  save  the  time  of  the  committee,  it  possible 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  understand  from  Senator  Dawsoi 

he  has  not  claimed  any  constitutional  privilege  here. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Yo.  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  But  he  is  asking  this  committee  not  to  compe 

him  to  tell  certain  details  that  might  be  used  against  him  down  n 
Sangamon  County,  where  he  has  to  defend  against  an  indictment 
I  do^not  know  whether  I  am  disclosing  anything  I  should  not  or  not 
but  one  of  the  details  I  can  see  might  be  quite  important  was  th 
names  of  the  witnesses  that  he  might  intend  to  prove  his  defense  bj 
Mr.  Dawson.  That  is  exactly  the  position. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  he  should  not  be  compelled  to  tell  that.  1  ha 
does  not  go  to  the  question  of  whether  or  not  he  paid  Holstla^ 
money  or  whether  anybody  paid  Senator  Broderick  money. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  I  suppose  the  question  that  he  will  object  t 
will  arise  when  it  is  put.  There  is  no  use  speculating  on  it. 

Senator  Paynter.  You  want  some  assurance  from  the  committe 

before  he  commences  to  testify  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Yes.  .  ,  ,  ,, 

Senator  Paynter.  As  to  the  mam  question.  I  understand  tha 
you  will  be  willing  to  go  ahead  and  tell  about  the  Holstlaw  transac 

tion  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Yes.  .  ..... 

Senator  Paynter.  But  you  would  want  the  inquiry  limited  or  coi 

fined  to  that  alone?  .  .  . 

Mr.  Dawson.  Yes;  for  this  reason:  We  might  proceed  here  an 

get  to  a  certain  stage ;  now,  we  might  from  the  initiative  of  th 
hearing  be  compelled  to  take  a  position  at  once,  if  we  knew ,  wit 
respect  to  these  details ;  we  would  not  have  the  opportunity  ot  stoj 

ping  right  then  and  there.  . 

Senator  Paynter.  Your  idea  is  to  get  an  assurance  in  advance,  £ 

as  to  advise  your  client? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  425 


Mr.  Dawson.  Yes;  I  would  like  to  have  the  committee  pass  on 
that  phase  of  it.  I  have  tried  to  make  my  position  plain. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  suppose  the  committee  can  lay  down  the 
rule  whether  they  are  going  to  permit  a  question  to  be  answered  until 
the  question  is  asked. 

Mr.  Dawson.  The  explanation  I  have  made  and  the  remarks  of 
Judge  Hanecy  show  the  phase  of  our  defense  that  might  be  gone  into. 
The  details  in  connection  with  the  payment  as  alleged  on  or  about 
the  16th  of  June  or  subsequent  to  it ;  that  we  do  not  want  to  go  into 
it  this  time.  Anything  else  we  are  open  here  to  testify  to.  It 
seems  to  me  that  proposition  could  be  passed  upon  by  the  committee 
in  advance. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  I  understand  you  correctly,  Mr.  Dawson,  you 
io  not  want  the  committee  to  interrogate  Mr.  Broderick  with  refer- 
?nce  to  the  payment  of  any  money  alleged  to  have  been  paid  in  June 
or  July,  1909. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Yo;  that  is  not  my  position. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then,  let  us  go  on  with  it  then. 

Mr.  Dawson.  That  is  not  my  position,  but  the  detail  of  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  surrounding  that  payment  at  that  time.  We  will  meet 
the  question  if  put  squarely  to  Senator  Broderick  if  he  paid  on  the 
16th  day  of  June,  or  thereabouts,  any  money  to  Senator  Holstlaw. 
We  are  ready  to  have  him  answer  that,  and  he  will  answer  that. 

Senator  Frazier.  But  you  do  not  want  him  to  answer  any  of  the 
facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  that  incident? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Surrounding  that  incident,  at  this  time.  It  is  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  our  defense  that  is  very  important.  We  do  not  know  what 
may  confront  us  in  Sangamon  County  on  the  trial  of  this  case,  what 
supplemental  statement  Holstlaw  will  make  or  anybody  else.  In  ap¬ 
pearing  before  this  committee  we  must  protect  our  client’s  rights 
fully. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  there  is  a  question  of  the  payment  of 


$700? 


Mr.  Dawson.  Yes. 

Senator  Gamble.  You  are  ready  to  testify  in  regard  to  that? 

Mr.  Dawson.  We  are  ready  to  give  that. 

Senator  Paynter.  You  would  not  want  a  full  cross-examination 
relative  to  the  facts  and  circumstances  outside  of  whether  he  paid 
the  money;  is  that  the  idea? 

Mr.  Dawson.  At  this  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  had  a  number  of  conferences  with  Senator 
Dawson  about  this  matter  with  a  view  of  having  this  testimony 

Dome  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge  Hanecy,  did  you  desire  to  make  any 

remarks  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  have  had  a 
number  of  conferences  Avith  Senator  DaAvson  about  this  matter,  and 
he  has  always  expressed  a  willingness  to  have  his  client  go  on  and 
testify,  and  t  understand  his  client  has  not  only  expressed  a  willing¬ 
ness  but  an  anxiety  to  go  on  and  testify  on  this  matter,  on  eA^erything, 
his  client  said.  But  when  his  attorneys  came  to  consult  in  the  matter 
they  saw  that  on  cross-examination,  Avith  the  liberal  scope  that  is 
Gfiven  to  the  cross-examiner  here,  that  a  whole  lot  of  details  may  be 
developed  here  as  to  those  present  on  a  certain  occasion,  and  so  forth, 


426  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

and  compel  the  witness  to  tell  those  details  and  then  have  those  de¬ 
tails  used  either  for  somebody  claiming  to  represent  this  committee 
or  somebody  else  to  go  and  talk  with  the  witnesses  and  deter  them 
from  testifying  in  his  defense  there  or  affect  their  testimony  in  some 
way.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  state  how  it  might  be  done  to  this 
honorable  committee,  composed  entirely  of  lawyers.  That  is  the 
thing  that  Senator  Dawson,  I  understand,  and  his  associates  are 
objecting  to,  to  have  their  client  give  in  to  this  committee,  but  so 
that  it  may  be  used  to  aid  the  prosecution  in  the  case  against  him 
down  there  or  hamper  this  witness  in  his  defense  when  he  goes  down 
there  on  the  trial  on  the  indictment.  I  understand  he  is  willing  to 
tell  all  those  details  and  any  other  details  that  this  committee  may 
want  after  that  trial  down  there.  He  will  go  on  here,  Senator  Daw¬ 
son  has  said  to  me,  and  tell  whether  or  not  he  received  any  money 
from  anybody  to  pay  to  Holstlaw  or  anybody  else,  or  to  influence  his 
vote  for  Senator  Lorimer.  He  will  go  on  and  tell  whether  or  not  he 
paid  any  money  to  Senator  Holstlaw  on  the  16th  of  the  month  or  any 
other  time,  and  he  will  go  on  and  tell  whether  or  not  he  paid  any 
money  to  Senator  Holstlaw  at  the  time  Senator  Holstlaw  said  he  re¬ 
ceived  $700  from  him,  and  he  will  tell  anything  else  in  relation  to  any 
payments  of  money  by  anybody  to  Senator  Broderick  or  by  Sena¬ 
tor  Broderick  to  anybody,  but  he  will  not  tell,  as  I  understand  it,  the 
names  of  the  witnesses  "that  were  present  at  different  times  or  that 
he  relies  on  or  will  rely  on  for  his  defense  when  he  goes  down  there. 

Now,  Senator  Dawson  and  his  associate  counsel  in  that  case  are  of 
the  opinion,  or  were,  that  they  ought  to  claim  their  privilege,  if  they 
claim  it  at  all,  and  they  say  they  do  not  want  to  claim  it,  at  the 
beginning,  and  if  the  committee  is  going  to  compel  them  to  disclose 
matters  that  will  embarrass  them  in  their  defense  down  there  or 
tell  the  prosecution  long  in  advance  of  the  trial  down  there  what 
his  defense  will  be  and  the  witnesses  by  whom  he  expects  to  sustain 
his  defense,  then  he  will  probably  have  to  claim  his.  privilege,  but 
that  is  the  only  thing  he  wants  to  claim  it  on.  Now,  if  I  have  over¬ 
stated  anything  I  hope  Senator  Dawson  will  correct  it. 

Senator  Painter.  Judge,  is  it  not  a  most  difficult  thing  for  the 
committee  to  determine  as  the  case  progresses,  as  to  whether  this 
question  or  that  question  should  be  answered  with  reference  to  the 
testimony  of  the  witness,  or  counsel  to  withhold  or  tell  it,  as  the 
case  may  be  ?  I  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  done  very  well. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  was  going  to  suggest  this,  Senator  Paynter. 
that  if  this  honorable  committee  will  permit  Senator  Dawson  tc 
make  the  objection — he  does  not  represent  anybody  in  this  case— 
but  if  you  will  permit  him  to  make  an  objection  when  he  thinks  a 
disclosure  will  be  made  that  might  affect  his  defense  down  there,  I 
suppose  that  is  all  he  will  care  for. 

Senator  Paynter.  Well,  I  am  not  expressing  any  opinion,  but  the 
question  is,  if  he  goes  upon  the  stand  and  gives  testimony  with 
relation  to  these  two  transactions  to  which  Senator  Holstlaw  refers 
whether  or  not  then  he  has  any  right  to  claim  any  privilege  at  all 
so  as  to  prevent  a  cross-examination.  I  don  t  know  as  to  that;  I  am 
not  expressing  any  opinion  on  that  subject  at  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  suppose  he  would  have  his  right  to  claim  hk 
privilege  at  any  time,  at  any  part  of  the  proceeding,  because  it  k 
constitutional,  and  it  may  be"raised  by  him  or  anybody  representing 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  427 


him  at  any  time.  But,  as  I  understand  it,  Senator  Dawson  did  not 
want  to  appear  to  be  at  all  discourteous  or  breaking  in  here  making 
objections  in  a  proceeding  he  was  not  a  party  to  and  have  his  motives 
or  actions  misconstrued  by  the  committee.  I  think  that  is  the  only 
thing  that  he  desires  to  reserve,  from  my  talk  with  him. 

Senator  Dawson.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  really  do  not  see  what  all  this 
debate  is  about.  Mr.  Dawson  gets  up  and  says  he  has  no  objection 
to  the  witness  testifying  except  on  certain  things,  and  Judge  Hanecy 
gets  up  and  approves  what  Mr.  Dawson  said,  that  it  is  true.  In  the 
language  of  Shakespeare,  “  My  lady,  I  think,  doth  protest  too 
much.”  If  any  objection  arises  and  is  well  taken  by  the  witness, 
Judge  Ilanecy,  or  anyone  else,  I  presume  the  committee  will  enter¬ 
tain  it.  That  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am  willing  to  examine  Mr. 
Broderick  without  asking  the  name  of  a  single  witness.  I  do  not 
want  to  know  who  was  in  his  saloon  wdien  he  paid  the  money  or 
who  he  talked  to  or  anyone  else.  I  want  to  know  about  those  two 
transactions.  And  if  my  cross-examination  is  improper,  the  Chair 
will  stop  it. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Let  me  ask  a  question,  Mr.  Austrian.  Will  you  ask 
anything  relative  to  the  date  of  the  16th  day  of  June  or  subsequent 
date? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Of  course  I  will  ask  something  about  the  time,  and 
I  will  ask  where  he  got  the  money,  and  I  will  ask  who  he  paid  the 
money  to,  and  I  will  ask  him  under  what  conditions  he  paid  the 
money,  and  whether  he  was  indebted  to  Holstlaw,  and  everything 
about  it.  Of  course  I  will.  But  I  will  not  ask  the  name  of  a  single 
witness,  and  you  need  not  be  fearful  of  that.  / 

Senator  Paynter.  Mr.  Dawson,  supposing  the  committee  would 
suggest  in  advance  that  you  would  allow  your  client  to  testify  with 
reference  to  this  transaction  and  stop  there.  Now,  at  a  subsequent 
time  counsel  or  Mr.  Austrian  possibly  may  want  to  examine  in  regard 
to  all  those  details;  would  that  necessitate  bringing  the  witness  back 
at  some  time  ?  Supposing  he  is  tried  and  convicted  or  acquitted,  as  the 
case  may  be,  the  committee  would  still  want  this  cross-examination. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  he  is  willing  to  do  that,  I  understand. 

Mr.  Dawson.  We  would  not  have  any  objection  to  that,  Senator,  if 
it  came  at  a  time  subsequent  to  his  trial. 

Senator  Paynter.  Yes. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Go  to  Washington,  or  any  other  place  where  your 
honorable  committee  might  meet  or  sit. 

Senator  Paynter.  Then,  is  there  enough  to  be  gained  by  a  partial 
examination  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  willing  that  the  committee  examine  him  and 
have  it  entirely  and  exclusively  within  their  own  jurisdiction. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Dawson,  if  I  understand  you,  you  do  not 
desire  at  this  time  to  plead  any  constitutional  rights  you  have  for 
your  client  to  protect  him  against  the  subpoena  of  this  committee; 
that  is,  testifying  at  all? 

Mr.  Dawson.  No. 

Senator  Frazier.  You  are  willing  for  your  client  to  testify  to  cer¬ 
tain  designated  facts  to  which  you  have  referred,  to  wit,  the  alleged 
transaction  with  Senator  Holstlaw,  but  you  are  not  willing  that  he 


428  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

may  be  cross-examined  with  respect  to  the  details  of  those  two 
transactions  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  That  is  our  position. 

Senator  Frazier.  In  other  words,  you  are  willing  for  your  client 
simply  to  state  the  fact  that  he  did  or  did  not  pay  certain  money  to 
Senator  Holstlaw  on  those  two  occasions,  but  you  are  not  willing  for 
him  to  be  cross-examined  as  to  any  of  the  facts  and  circumstances 
surrounding  that  transaction. 

Mr.  Dawson.  That  is  our  position. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Do  you  mean  any  of  the  facts  and  circumstances, 
or  only  certain  facts  and  circumstances? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Relative  to  the  alleged  payment  of  the  money. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then,  in  other  words,  if  he  says  “  No,”  then  we  are 
to  be  bound  by  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  you  are  not;  you  can  contradict  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  But  I  can  not  cross-examine  him. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes ;  you  can. 

Mr.  Austran.  Do  you  represent  this  man  or  does  Senator  Dawson? 

Senator  BuRR0ws/Wait  a  moment,  please.  The  committee  under¬ 
stands  the  request  thoroughly  and  desires  to  give  it  consideration,  and 
we  will  therefore  adjourn  at  this  time  until  2  o’clock  this  afternoon. 

(Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  2  o’clock  p.  m.) 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Monday,  October  3 ,  1910. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  recess,  and  the  following  further 
proceedings  were  had : 

Senator  Burroavs.  Is  Mr.  Broderick  here? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  sent  for  Mr.  Gloss. 

Senator  Burroavs.  I  want  Mr.  Broderick. 

John  Broderick  resumed  the  stand,  and  testified  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Senator  Burroavs.  In  this  matter  the  committee  can  not  entertain 
the  proposition  that  if  this  witness  proceeds  with  his  testimony,  the 
ordinary  rules  of  evidence  or  the  practice  in  the  examination  of  wit¬ 
nesses  shall  be  suspended,  but  the  examination  must  proceed,  both 
direct  and  cross,  until  there  is  some  objection  made  by  the  witness  oi 
his  counsel  to  the  answer  that  the  question  proposes. 

In  vieAv  of  the  importance  of  the  matter,  the  committee  will  ash 
that  this  witness  be  withdrawn  at  this  time  and  counsel  proceed  with 
some  other  witness,  and  the  matter  will  be  determined  at  the  opening 
of  to-morrow’s  session. 

Q.  You  will  be  here  to-morrow,  at  that  time,  will  you  Mr.  Wit¬ 
ness? — A.  I  will  be  here. 

Q.  At  10  o’clock? — A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  asked  the  committee  tc 
issue  subpoenas  for  a  certain  number  of  other  Avitnesses  who  as  yet 
haA^e  not  appeared. 

Senator  Burrows.  Hand  me  the  list.  # 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  in  five  minutes.  Mr.  Chairman,  with  that 
reservation— that  is,  these  witnesses  who  haA^e  not  yet  appeared,  and 
such  other  witnesses  as  their  testimony  may  disclose,  we  rest. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like,  before  I  proceed,  tc 
know  just  Avhat  their  case  is.  The  statement  is  made  about  u  some 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  429 

other  witnesses  ”  or  “  such  other  witnesses  whose  names  they  may 
disclose.”  That  is  extremely  indefinite. 

Senator  Burrovts.  I  understand  from  counsel  that  the  list  of  wit¬ 
nesses  will  be  furnished — will  be  furnished  to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  there  are  only  three — Donohue,  Tyrrell,  and 
Shaw.  Mrs.  Luke  has  not  yet  responded  to  the  subpoena.  Lee  O’Neill 
Browne  has  not  yet  responded.  Mr.  Wilson  has  not  yet  responded, 
nor  Mr.  English  and  Mr.  Broderick — that  is,  Mr.  Broderick  is  not 
yet  testifying — he  has  not  yet  testified. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Broderick  is  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Broderick  is  here,  and  I  understand  Mr. 
Browne  is  in  the  next  room. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Is  he? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Broderick  is  here,  and  I  understand  Mr. 
Browne  is  in  the  next  room. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then,  let  us  call  Mr.  Browne.  Mr.  Browne  may 
not  have  all  of  these  constitutional  reservations. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  understand  the  same  question  relates  to  both 
Browne  and  Broderick. 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  the  first  place,  the  question  of  privilege  is  only 
one  that  can  be  availed  of  by  the  witness  himself.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  availing  of  it  through  counsel,  and  Mr.  Browne  can  not  avail 
himself  of  that  so-called  privilege  that  way.  I  do  not  intend,  and  I 
hope  this  committee  will  not  conclude  that  we  have  closed  until  these 
various  witnesses  have  been  disposed  of. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  want  these  people  here,  too,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  do  not  want  them  any  worse  than  we  do,  and 
they  are  not  here.  I  do  not  intend  to  make  an  argument  as  to  their 
not  testifying,  Judge  Hanecy. 

Senator  Burrows.  There  will  be  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the 
committee  to  shut  out  any  of  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  my  understanding. 

Senator  Burrows.  This  is  an  investigation. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Certainly. 

Senator  Burrows.  And  it  is  a  committee,  and  it  is  not  trying  a 
lawsuit. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

Senator  Burrows.  And  the  committee  is  seeking  the  truth  of  this 
matter,  and  will  not  always  be  governed  by  the  regular  rules  of  pro¬ 
ceedings  in  the  courts  where  trials  are  in  progress.  The  committee 
has  asked  this  witness  to  stand  aside  for  the  time  being  that  it  might 
examine  the  question  presented,  and  in  the  meantime  to  occupy  the 
time  of  the  committee  with  some  other  witness.  Judge,  have  you  any 
witness  that  you  can  present  at  this  time  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  would  like  to  call  Mr.  Dawson,  counsel  for  Mr. 
Broderick.  This  record  shows  at  a  number  of  different  places,  in 
executive  session  and  outside  of  it,  that  great  efforts  have  been  made 
to  get  Mr.  Browne,  but  apparently  he  had  secreted  himself,  or  some¬ 
thing  of  that  kind.  I  only  want  to  call  Mr.  Dawson,  and  I  may  want 
Mr.  Nixon,  to  show  that  Mr.  Dawson,  counsel  for  Mr.  Broderick, 
telephoned  to  Mr.  Nixon  for  information,  and  said  last  Saturday  that 
he.  Mr.  Dawson,  would  have  Mr.  Broderick - - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  us  have  the  testimony. 


430  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  And  that  Mr.  Nixon,  the  sergeant-at-arms,  told - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  him  testify. 

Thomas  Dawson,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly 
sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Judge  Hanecy, 
and  testified  as  follows: 

Q.  Mr.  Dawson,  you  are  a  practicing  attorney  at  this  bar  and 

have  been  for  several  years  last  past? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  were  Democratic  state  senator  from  one  of  the  senatorial 

districts  from  Chicago  to  the  state  senate  ? — A.  1  es,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  are  now  one  of  the  attorneys  for  Senator  Broderick  ; 

A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  In  the  Sangamon  County  case?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell  this  honorable  committee 
whether  you  communicated  with  Mr.  Nixon,  the  sergeant-at-arms  of 
the  committee,  as  to  how  he  could  subpoena  or  get,  or  you  could  get 
for  him, the  presence  of  Senator  Broderick? — A.  I  notified  Mr.  Nixon 
on  Saturday,  Saturday  afternoon,  in  the  early  part  of  the  afternoon, 
that  Mr.  Broderick  was  in  my  office,  and  that  I  would  see  that  he  was 
before  this  committee  not  later  than  10  o’clock,  Monday  morning, 
to-dav.  He  said  that  would  be  very  satisfactory.  I  told  him  at  that 
time  that  Mr.  Broderick  had  been  endeavoring  for  at  least  twenty- 
four  hours  to  try  to  get  in  communication  with  me,  and  had  spent  a 
large  part  of  the  previous  day  in  my  office,  probably  four  hours,  and 
that  the  first  opportunity  I  had  to  discuss  his  case  with  him  was  at 
that  time  when  I  notified  him. 

Q.  Were  there  any  proceedings  in  the  case  of  People  v.  Broderick 
before  the  criminal  court  of  Sangamon  County  last  week? — A.  \es; 
last  Wednesday. 

Q.  When  was  the  first  of  these  matters  set  down  there — when  did 
thev  start? — A.  Well - 

Q  i  want  to  know  when  you  and  Senator  Broderick  went  down 
there  in  the  cases  which  were  set  there? — A.  Last  week.  I  went 
down,  I  believe,  Sunday  night. 

Q.  A  week  ago  yesterday  ?— A.  A  week  ago  yesterday,  and  1  had 

notified  him  to  be  there  Tuesday. 

Q.  Was  he  there?— A.  He  was  there  Tuesday  morning. 

Q.  Were  you  there,  then,  after  that  up  to  what  time?— A.  Up  to 
Thursday  afternoon  about  2.30.  Senator  Broderick  remained  until 
midnight  of  Wednesday,  and,  I  believe,  he  left  for  Chicago. 

Q.  You  got  back  Thursday  ?—  A.  I  got  back  Thursday  night. 

Q.  You  left  there  Thursday  afternoon  about  2  o’clock,  and  got 
back  here  Thursday  night?— A.  Thursday  night  about  8  o'clock. 

Q.  Then,  Saturday  morning  you  notified  Mr.  Nixon? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  You  just  answered  Judge  Hanecy  that  you  notified  Mr.  Nixon 
Saturday  morning.  Now,  do  you  wish  to  correct  that? — A.  Y  ell,  11 

I  said - 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  didn’t  say  “  Saturday  morning. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  did.  Bead  the  last  question  and  ansv  er  and 

see  if  that  is  not  right. 

(Last  question  and  answer  put  by  Judge  Hanecy  was  read  by  the 
reporter.) 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  431 


Mr.  Austrian:  Yes.  Now.  do  you  wish  to  correct  that? — A.  I  do 
rant  to  correct  that  and  make  it  Saturday  afternoon,  as  I  previously 
tated. 

Q.  Now,  you  represent  Senator — State  Senator — Clark,  Joe  Clark, 
member  of  the  legislature? — A.  Where? 

Q.  In  any  proceedings  instituted  against  him  or  with  reference 
o  any  inquiry  arising  out  of  legislative  matters  in  the  forty-sixth 
eneral  assembly? — A.  Yes. 

%j 

Q.  Do  you  represent,  or  have  you  ever  represented,  or  given  any 
dvice,  or  advised  with  Henry  A.  Shephard?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  advised  with  or  represented  in  any  proceedings 
rising  out  of  that  matter  Lee  O’Neill  Browne? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  I  will  ask  the  same  question  with  reference  to  any  other  mem- 
er  of  the  legislature,  including  Mr.  Wilson.  Have  you  represented 
Ir.  Wilson  or  advised  with  him  ? — A.  I  advised  with  him ;  I  have 
dvised  with  him,  yes,  many  times. 

Q.  I  mean  arising  out  of  this  subject-matter? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  isn’t  it  a  fact  that  Mr.  Broderick  returned  to  the  city  of 
Tiicago  Thursday  morning? — A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  You  returned  on — you  were  in  Chicago  on  Thursday  morning, 

rere  you  not? — A.  Thursday  morning - 

Q.  Those  proceedings  were  terminated  in  Springfield  on  Wednes- 
ay,  were  they? — A.  They  were  terminated  Wednesday  evening. 

Q.  Wednesday  evening.  Isn’t  it  a  fact  that  you  arrived  in  Chicago, 
r  were  in  Chicago,  on  Thursday? — A.  Thursday  morning,  after  8 
’clock. 


Q.  And  isn’t  it  a  fact  that  Mr.  Broderick  was  in  Chicago  on  Thurs- 
ay? — A.  He  may  have  been. 

Q.  Didn't  you  see  him  here,  Mr.  Dawson — met  him;  hear  from 
im? — A.  Did  I  see  him?  No. 

Q.  Or  hear  from  him? — A.  I  had  a  communication  through  a 
riend  of  his;  yes. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  know  a  subpoena  had  issued  by  this  honorable 
ommittee  for  Mr.  Broderick  before  Saturday? — A.  I  did  not  know 
hat  a  subpoena  had  issued. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  that  this  committee  were  endeavoring  to  find 
Ir.  Broderick  before  Saturday? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  nor  hear  nor  communicate  with  Mr.  Broderick 
efore  Saturday? — A.  I  telephoned  to  his  place  of  business  and  tried 
3  reach  him. 

Q.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  haven’t  you  been  in  and  about  this  hotel 
ver  since  last  Thursday — Thursday  night? — A.  I  believe  I  was  in 
his  hotel  Friday.  I  was  not  here  Thursday  night. 

Q.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  haven’t  you  conferred  with  Joe  Clark  in 
his  hotel  before  he  went  upon  the  witness  stand? — A.  I  have  talked 
3  him. 

Q.  And  Mike  Link  ? — A.  I  said  “  How  do  you  do  ?  ”  to  Mike  Link. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  confer  with  Shephard  before  he  went  on  the  wit- 
ess  stand  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  J.  H.  De  Wolf  before  he  went  upon  the  witness  stand? — • 
L  No;  I  did  not  confer  with  him. 

Q.  You  did  not  have  any  conversation  with  him? — A.  Yes;  I  had  a 

onversation. 


432  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Now,  Mr.  Dawson,  you  say  Mr.  Broderick  was  in  your  office 
for  several  hours?— A.  So  he  informed  me  Saturday. 

Q.  Had  he  been  there  the  previous  day,  on  Friday?— A.  les. 

Q.  For  several  hours?—  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  never  ascertained  that  fact,  did  you,  until  Satur¬ 
day?— A.  I  was  told  it  on  the  evening  of  Friday  by 

V.  1  4  T - -  ATT 


Y  r,  |  \  >  Cl  L'UItt  1U  V_/ll  tliv  V  »  V-LXXAA^  v*  A  —  —  # 

Q.  I  beg  your  pardon. — A.  I  was  told  on  the  evening  of  Friday 
that  he  had  been  in  my  office— one  of  the  boys  telephoned  me. 

Q.  You  say  you  notified  Mr.  Nixon? — A.  Yes. 
q  ^nd  when  did  you  ascertain  that  a  subpoena  had  issued  tor 
Mr"  Broderick?— A.  I  never  really  knew  that  a  subpmna  had  issued, 
but  I  saw  a  telegram  that  had  been  sent  by  Mr.  Nixon  to  the  St. 
Nicholas  Hotel  on  Wednesday  night,  which  was  received  Thursday 
morning,  and  the  clerk  told  me  that  there  was  a  telegram  tor  Mr. 

Broderick. 

Q.  Did  you  open  it  ? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  That  was  from  Mr.  Nixon,  sergeant-at-arms J — A.  les. 
o’.  And  you  opened  it  Thursday  ?— A.  Yes. 

O.  And  you  then  knew  that  this  committee  desired  to  have  Mr. 
Broderick  attend  upon  these  hearings?— A.  Yes;  and  I  called  him 
on  the  telephone  the  very  first  opportunity  I  had. 

Q.  You  did?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  say  you  notified  Mr.  Nixon  Saturday  afternoon  that  you 

would  produce  Mr.  Broderick,  did  you ?  A.  les. 

Q.  When  did  you  tell  him  that  you  would  produce  him?— A.  -Not 

later  than  10  o’clock  this  morning.  „  ,  i 

Q  When  did  vou  tell  Mr.  Nixon  that  fact? — A.  One  or  2  o  clock. 

I  should  judge,  Saturday  afternoon,  I  think  it  was. 

q  Didn’t  Mr.  Nixon  ask  you  if  he  might  subpoena  Mi.  Brod¬ 
erick?— A.  I  told  him  that  would  not  be  necessary. 

Q.  Didn’t  he  ask  you  whether  he  could  subpoena  Mr.  Broderick  ; 

A.  I  do  not  believe  he  did.  ,  .  ,  ,  ,  „  i 

Q  Didn’t  he,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  cause  Mr  Broderick  to  be  sub- 

pcenaed  Saturday  night?— A.  He  has  informed  me  that  he  did  not 
1  Q.  Wasn’t  Mr.  Broderick  subpoenaed  Saturday  night  .  A.  I  dc 

not  believe  he  was  by  any  of  Mr.  Nixon’s  men 

O.  Wasn't  Mr.  Broderick  subpoenaed  Saturday  night .  A.  I  don 
know  whether  he  was  properly  subpoenaed  or  not.  Now,  1  under 
stand  from  the  conversation  I  had- 


I  am  not  asking  you  that. — A.  Well,  this  relates  to  whether  h, 
was  subpoenaed  or  not.'  Mr.  Nixon  said  none  of  his  men  subpcenaec 
Broderick,  but  Mr.  Broderick  brought  in  here  to-day  the  copy  of  wha 
purported  to  be  a  subpoena,  and  Mr.  Nixon  told  him  that  was  no 
served  by  his  men,  and  there  was  an  alteration  on  there  in  -ead  penc 
made  by  somebody,  and  Mr.  Nixon  said  that  it  was  not  his  subpoena 
and  it  was  marked  “  Copy  of  subpoena,”  and  it  had  no  bmdmg  fore 
or  effect  at  all  on  Broderick  unless  he  acknowledged  service  on  it. 
O.  NIr.  Nixon  told  that?— A.  He  told  him  that  a  few  minutes  ago 
Q  Don’t  you  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  this  committee  di 
rected  its  subpoenas  to  be  issued  for  the  purpose  of  apprehending  Mr 
Broderick  ?— A.  I  could  not  say  as  to  that.  sir. 

Q.  You  never  communicated  with  Mr.  Hanecy  or  any  number  o 
the  lawyers  who  represent  Mr.  Lorimer  in  this  investigation  wit) 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  433 

eference  to  Mr.  Broderick’s  appearance  here,  did  you? — A.  I  did 
lot  discuss  Mr.  Broderick  with  Judge  Hanecy  at  all. 

Q.  At  no  time? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  desire  to  object  to  the  language  of  counsel,  and 
isk  to  have  it  stricken  out,  and  he  not  be  permitted  to  use  that  lan¬ 
guage.  There  is  no  proceeding  that  this  committee  can  issue  that  will 
ipprehend  Mr.  Broderick. 

Senator  Gamble.  Does  it  appear  that  the  subpoenas  were  issued  ? 

Mr.  Austian.  Thev  were  issued  on  the  order  of  this  honorable 
committee,  I  believe,  on  last  Friday.  I  am  not  sure.  I  mean  sub- 
icenaes,  copies  of  the  subpcenaes.  I  think  it  was  last  Friday.  The 
>riginal  subpcenaes  were  issued  long  before  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  can’t  you  use  some  other  word? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Besides  “apprehend?” 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes ;  some  other  word  besides  “  apprehend.” 

Mr.  Austrian,  If  I  had  known  that  it  was  going  to  cause  all  of 
hat  argument  I  would  not  have  used  that  word  for  a  good  deal. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  original  subpoenas  will  show  the  date  they 
vere  issued. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  word  “  apprehend  ”  can  be  stricken  out. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all  I  desire. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  say  you  did  not  confer  with  any  counsel  for 
Jr.  Lorimer.  Is  that  correct  ? — A.  About  what  ? 

Q.  About  this  matter  of  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Broderick  before 
his  committee? — A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  about  whether  he  should  testify? — A.  No. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  heard  Judge  Hanecy’s  statement  this  morning,  didn’t 
rou? — A.  I  heard  no  statement  of  Judge  Hanecy.  About  his  testi¬ 
fying  ? 

Q.  But  you  were  here  in  the  room? — A.  I  told  Judge  Hanecy - 

Q.  Just  a  moment;  I  am  cross-examining  you,  Mr.  Dawson.  I 
voukl  like  to  know  whether  or  not  you  heard  a  statement  of  Judge 
Hanecy  with  reference  to  Broderick  testifying  here? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  statement  correct  or  incorrect? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Then,  you  did  have  a  conference  with  Judge  Hanecy  about  Mr. 
Broderick  testifying,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When? — A.  Will  you  let  me  explain? 

Q.  You  can  explain  it  when  I  am  through. — A.  All  right. 

Q.  When? — A.  Oh.  some  day  last  week,  before  any  subpoenas — 
)efore  I  knew  any  subpoenas  were  issued. 

Q.  Mr.  Dawson,  Mr.  Broderick  is  perfectly  willing  to  testify  here, 
sn’t  he? — A.  He  has  so  stated  to  me,  and  I  have  so  stated  to  this 
committee. 

Q.  Never  mind  what  you  said.  I  am  asking  you,  Mr.  Dawson,  if 
VIr.  Broderick  is  perfectly  willing  to  testify  to  this  committee  and 
late  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  that  he  knows  about,  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  votes  for  Mr.  Lorimer  or  anything  in  reference  to  Mr.  Lori- 
ner’s  election,  isn’t  he? — A.  Yes;  within  certain  limits  which  I 
stated. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  proper  thing  for  counsel 
o  go  to  work  and  inquire  as  to  the  relations  of  attorney  and  client. 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 28 


434  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  not  asking  for  any  conversation.  Counsel 
gave  a  statement  as  to  that  fact  this  morning. 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  have  no  objection  to  answering  it. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  know  you  have  not;  but  I  clo  not  think  we 
ouo-ht  to  stay  here  and  investigate  a  question  of  that  kind. 

Sir.  Austrian.  If  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  thinks  I  ought  not 

do  it.  I  will  abandon  that  line  of  examination.  . 

Q  Mr.  Dawson,  have  vou  represented  Mr.  Broderick  m  all  oi 
those  proceedings  at  Springfield— I  mean  in  reference  to  the  indict¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Broderick,  the  appearance,  and  so  forth  * — A.  1  have. 
I  have  not  been  alone  in  representing  him. 

Q.  Mho  else?— A.  There  have  been  a  number 


Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  having  him  disclose  the  confidential 

relations  between  himself  and  other  counsel. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  question  is  whether  anybody  else  repre¬ 
sented  him.  .  .  , 

Judge  IIanecy.  That  is  right.  He  may  have  been  in  conference 

with  other  counsel. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  not  asking  about  their  conference.  I  askec 
for  the  other  counsel  who  appeared  with  him. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  withdraw  it.  That  is  all.  .  _  _ 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Dawson,  what  was  the  charge  against  Mr 
Broderick  in  the  case  you  represented  him  m  Springfield  {  A 
Bribery 

Q.  In  connection  with  wliat?— A.  In  connection  with  the  prom 

ising  to  pav  for  votes  for  Lorimer. 

Q.  In  connection  with  the  election  of  the  Senator? — A.  les,  sn 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  Q  . 

Senator  Frazier.  Have  you  a  copy  of  that  indictment .— A. 
have,  and  am  glad  to  furnish  it  to  the  committee;  I  brought  it  fo 

thQ.PJ^t°Sone  indictment?— A.  One  indictment  against  Mr.  Brod 
erick.  You  can  have  that,  gentlemen. 

George  F.  Gloss,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  dul 
sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Judge  Hanecy,  an 
testified  as  follows: 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name?— A.  George  F.  Gloss. 

Q.  What  is  your  business?— A.  Motorman  of  a  street  car. 

Q!  Where?— A.  Chicago,  Ill.  A 

Q.  What  division  of  the  city,  or  what  line? — A.  On  the  Ogde 

avenue  line.  J  0  ^  ^  . 

Q.  That  runs  from  downtown  here  out  west  { — A.  (Jut  to  r  ortiet 

avenue  and  Ogden. 

Q.  You  are  a  married  man? — A.  T  es.  sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  wife’s  name? — A.  Ella. 

Q.  Have  you  any  children  ? — A.  Three. 

Q.  Have  you  a  boy  who  has  an  anniversary  of  his  birthday  c 

the  26th  of  May?— A.  Yes,  sir.  .  ^  , , 

Q.  How  old  is  he?— A.  He  was  7  the  26th  day  of  last  May. 

Q.  What  is  his  name?— A.  George  Frederick  Milton  Gloss. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  A.  White? — A.  Tes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  435 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  before  you  came  to  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  know  him,  and  where? — A.  I  first  knew 
him  about  five  years  ago,  about  the  11th — between  the  6th  and  11th 
of  January,  last  January. 

Q.  Where? — A.  At  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  East  St.  Louis,  and  Collinsville; 
I  met  him  at  all  these  places. 

Q.  W  is  he  a  conductor  at  that  time,  a  street-car  conductor? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  were  you  a  motorman? — A.  I  was  motorman;  yes,  sir; 
and  conductor;  I  worked  as  motorman  and  conductor,  both,  at  that 
time. 

Q.  Did  you  and  he  have  a  run  together  at  any  time? — A.  INo;  we 
never  had  a  regular  run  together  as  regular  conductor  and  motor- 
man,  but  I  have  run  with  him  at  different  times  when  I  was  on  the 
extra  list. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Charles  A.  White  here  on  the  Sunday  before 
Senator  Lorimer  was  elected;  that  was  the  Sunday  before  the  26th 
of  May,  1909  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  walk  with  Charles  A.  White  to  Van  Buren  street  down 
State  on  that  occasion? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  got  down  to  State  street  did  you  say  to  Mr.  White: 
“White,  it  would  seem  that  you  will  soon  elect  a  man  down  there; 
who  do  you  think  it  will  be  ?  ”  Did  you  say  that  to  White  ? — A.  In 
substance ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  White  say  to  you,  in  response  to  that  question,  “  I  don’t 
know  ?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  say  to  Mr.  White  following  that — did  White  then 
say  to  you  following  that :  “  What  do  you  think  about  this  man 
Lorimer?” — A.  In  substance;  yes.  “Think”  or  “know,”  I  would 
not  say  which,  “  think  ”  or  “  know.” 

Q.  What  do  you  think  or  know  about  it? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  did  you  say  to  White  in  reply :  “  I  do  not  know  personally, 
but  the  boys  told  me  that  he  is  a  good  friend  of  the  street-car  men; 
he  has  done  them  many  a  favor?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  White  then  say,  “So  I  have  heard?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  White  at  the  Briggs  House  in  July,  1909? — A. 
Well,  I  could  not  say  whether  it  was  July  or  August,  but — no,  I  don’t 
think  it  was  July.  It  was  later  than  that.  It  was  just  before  the 
street-car  men’s  convention  in  Toronto,  Canada,  because  we  discussed 
about  the  delegates  wTho  were  going  to  be  sent  there. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  talk  with  Charles  A.  White? - A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  that  occasion  at  the  Briggs  House? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  that  conversation  did  you  say  to  White :  “  How  did  it  hap¬ 
pen?  ”  and  did  White,  in  reply,  say  to  you:  “  I  am  low  down  on  the 
list,  and  when  they  came  to  my  name  I  was  so  excited  as  to  what  to 
do  that  I  just  hallooed  out  4  Lorimer.’  ” — A.  I  wish  you  would  repeat 
the  first  part  of  that  question  again. 

Q.  In  that  conversation  did  you  say  to  White,  “  How  did  it  hap¬ 
pen?  ” — A.  That  is  not  just  right.  I  said  to  him:  “  I  see  you  voted 
for  Lorimer;  how  did  it  happen?  ” 

Q.  And  did  White,  in  reply,  say  to  you,  “  I  am  low  down  on  the 
list,  and  when  they  came  to  my  name  I  was  so  excited  as  to  what  to 
do  that  I  just  hallooed  out  4  Lorimer  ’?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 


436  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q  And  did  you  then  ask  White  how  White’s  real  estate  business 
was*  and  did  White  say  “  not  very  well?  A.  Now,  I  don’t  know 
whether  it  was  real  estate  business  or  whether  it  was  the  insurance 
business.  He  was  in  the  insurance  business  and  real  estate  business 
both,  but  I  asked  him  with  reference  to  one;  I  don’t  know  which. 

Q.  Did  he  answer  “  not  very  well?  ” — A.  “  Not  very  well.  . 

Q.  On  that  occasion  did  you  say  to  W  liite,  u  W hat  are  you  going  to 

do  ?  A.  Yes,  sir.  .  x  ,  ,  ,  .  ,  T 

Q.  And  did  White  answer,  “  I  am  trying  to  get  a  federal  job;  1 

am  up  here  to  see  Lorimer  now  before  he  is  going  away  to  Europe 

I  ;  ..  .  t*  u  i  _  _ _  55  T  rl  rvf  lm  A  VT7 


to-morrow  2  ” — A.  Well,  as  far  as  “  to-morrow,”  I  do  not  know 

U  7  ,  •  T  IL  51  1  _  1.  ll. _ _ _ . 


whether  it  was  “  to-morrow  ”  he  said  “  or  soon,  but  it  was  one  or  the 

0t  Qr*Is  that  the  rest— is  the  rest  of  that  right?— A.  In  substance. 

Q.  And  did  White  say  to  you,  “  I  am  going  to  try  to  get  a  job  as 
reporter  on  an  ocean  vessel  at  $3,o00  a  year,  or  try  to  get  a  job  as  a 

secret-service  man  ?  ” — A.  T  es,  sir. 

Q.  Did  White  take  a  round  trip  on  your  street  car— take  a  round 

trip  around  the  loop— from  Fortieth  avenue  and  back  again  to  Lake 
street  and  Fifth  avenue  ?— A.  No ;  that  is  not  just  quite  right.  He  got 
on  at  Lake  and  Fifth  avenue  and  made  a  complete  circle  and  went  to 
Fortieth  avenue  and  back,  and  back  bv  Fifth  avenue  and  Lake  and 
went  around  as  far  as  Clark  and  TV  ashington.  He  got  off  at  Clark 
street  and  Washington  instead  of  Lake  and  I  iftli  avenue. 

Q  And  did  you  say  to  White,  “  Charley,  how  about  your  job^ 
and  then  did  White  say,  “  I  didn’t  get  the  jobs  I  was  talking  about, 
but  they  offered  me  a  job  in  the  county  building  at  $70  a  month,  and 
I  turned  it  down?  ” — A.  Seventy-five  dollars  a  month. 

Q.  Seventy-five  dollars.  I  think  that  was  a  stenographic  error 

there. — A.  A  es,  sir.  r 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  24th  day  of  May,  1909  ?  A.  Aes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Sidney  Yarbrough  that  day?  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  I  will  state  the  purpose  of  my  objection 
On  cross-examination — just  you  refresh  your  recollection  foi  a  mo¬ 
ment,  so  there  will  be  no  dispute  about  the  record,  because  I  have  ll 
here  that  Mr.  White  testified  that  Mr.  Browne  came  to  his  room  or 
the  night  of  the  24th  of  May  and  asked  him  to  come  to  his  room.  Now 
that  is  the  entire  direct  examination  on  that  subject;  that  he  went  t( 
his  room,  and  then  they  had  a  discussion  in  the  room.  On  cross 
examination  Judge  Hanecy  put  this  question  to  Mr.  White: . 

Q.  Between  10  o’clock  at  night  and  2  o  clock  m  the  morning.  A 
Yes,  sir.”  That  is  the  time  he  asked  him  to  come  to  his  room.  ‘‘Aik 
he  f referring  to  Yarborough]  was  in  your  room  when  Lee  O’Neil 
Browne  went  there  and  asked  you  to  go  to  his  room.”  That  is  oi 
cross-examination.  Then  I  objected  as  immaterial,  etc.  Now,  I  wan 
to  present  this  statement  of  fact  and  law  to  this  committee.  There  i 
no  testimony  in  this  record  as  to  anything  that  transpired  in  TT  lute 
-oom  on  the  night  of  May  24,  1909,  except  the  testimony  of  Tv  hit 
that  Browne  came  to  White’s  room  and  asked  him  to  go  to  his  roon 
that  night  of  May  24.  On -cross-examination  Judge  Hanecy  aske< 
him  who  was  in  the  room,  and  then  the  objection;  the  objection  wa 
overruled ;  the  committee  ruled  to  answer,  and  he  answered,  Otis  an* 
Sidney  Yarborough.”  Now,  counsel  puts  a  question  to  the  witness 
It  is  a  preliminary  question,  but  I  desire  to  object  at  this  time,  i 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  437 

ie  saw  Sidney  Yarborough  on  the  24th  of  May.  It  is  eventually  for 
he  purpose  of  impeaching  Mr.  White  in  his  answer  on  cross-exami- 
lation  as  to  who  was  in  his  room  on  the  24th  of  May.  Now,  I  submit 
o  this  committee  that  that  is  a  collateral  issue ;  it  is  not  a  substantive 
ssue,  because  there  is  no  testimony  in  this  record  as  to  any  conver- 
ation  had  in  White’s  room  on  the  24th  of  May,  and  the  law  in  this 
•hate  is,  and  the  law  everywhere  is,  that  you  can  not  impeach  a  wit¬ 
less  on  an  immaterial  and  collateral  issue,  and  I  have  the  books 
lere  if  the  committee  desires  to  see  them.  I  desire  to  make  that 
itatement. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  intend  to  show,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
vhat  Mr.  White  testified  took  place  between  himself  and  Mr.  Browne 
>n  the  occasion  of  the  24th,  the  night  of  the  24th  of  May,  1909.  I 
hink  Mr.  White  said  it  was  some  time  between  10  o’clock  in  the 
veiling  and  2  o’clock  the  next  morning  when  this  conversation  took 
dace.  He,  Sidney  Yarborough,  and  Otis  Yarborough  were  in  his 
•oom  at  Springfield  on  that  occasion,  and  that  Browne  came  into 
fis  room,  got  him,  took  him  out,  and  that  it  was  there,  while  in 
Irowne’s  room,  that  the  proposition  was  made — the  arrangement  was 
nade  by  which  White  was  to  vote  for  Lorimer  and  be  paid  for  it 
51,000,  and  that  White  went  back  again,  as  I  am  informed,  went  back 
igain  into  the  room,  wrhere  White  says — that  Browne  went  back  into 
he  room,  where  White  says  the  two  Yarboroughs  were  in  bed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  not  in  the  record. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  say  I  am  going  to  put  that  in. 

Mr.  Austrian.  All  right. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  called  this  witness  out  of  the  order  for  the 
mrpose  of — at  the  request  of  the  honorable  chairman  and  this  com- 
nittee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  us  have  the  situation. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all  in  the  record ;  I  will  read  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  got  the  record  here,  and  I  presume  you  have. 
)n  direct  examination — Judge  Hanecy,  will  you  please  correct  me,  if 
Tou  think  I  misstate  the  record. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  I  will  not  undertake  such  a  herculean  task. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Because  your  mind  is  not  capable,  perhaps. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think,  probably,  that  is  right. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  controversy  between  counsel  had  better  be 
tricken  out. 

Mr.  Austrian.  So  that  there  might  not  be  any  controversy  as  to 
he  record,  I  asked  Judge  Hanecy  to  correct  me. 

Senator  Burrows.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  he  did  not  agree  with  me  as  to  the  record. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Do  you  know  Sidney  Yarborough? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  witness  answer. 

The  Witness.  Did  you  say  answer? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Do  you  know  Sidney  Yarborough? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him? — A.  About  five  and  one-half 
fears,  probably  a  little  over. 

Q.  The  last  five  and  one-half  years? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  meet  him  on  the  24th  of  May,  1 909  ? 


438  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment.  I  not  only  desire  to  object  for  the 
reasons  stated,  but  object  to  counsel  testifying. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  objection  is  sustained  whenever  counsel 

on  either  side  testify.  T 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  not  what  I  am  doing,  Mr.  Chairman.  I 

am  reading  from  the  testimony  that  was  taken  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  could  not  be  from  the  testimony,  because 
neither  Sidney  nor  Otis  Yarborough  have  testified. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  see  Sidney  Yarborough  on  that  day  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  Let  him  ask  him  when  he  met  him,  if 

you  permit  this  testimony  to  be  in. 

Judge  Hanecy.  When  was  it  you  met  him  on  that  day ? 

A.  I  met  him  that  evening.  He  went  home  with  me  on  my  car,  and 

stayed  at  my  house.  4  ,,T  „  _ 

Q.  What  time  did  you  meet  him,  about?— A.  Well,  I  could  not 

sav  exactly ;  I  think  he  made  one  trip  with  me  before  we  vent  home. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  in  the  evening,  or  later? — A.  It  was  about  some¬ 
where  around  9  or  10  o’clock  at  night. 

Q.  Did  you— that  you  started  to  go  to  your  house  ?— A.  I  hat  1 

first  met  him  that  night.  .  _  . 

Q.  What  time  did  you  go  with  him  to  your  house  ? — A.  Somewhere 

between  12  and  1  o’clock.  .  „  . , 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  at  that  time?— A.  1064  Springfield  avenue, 

I  think  it  was,  or  1046—1064,  I  think,  is  correct. 

Q.  In  this  city?—  A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q  How  long  did  Sidney  Yarborough  remain  at  your  house  that 
night?— A.  He  staved  there  all  night;  got  up  next  morning  and  m} 
wife  prepared  breakfast  for  him,  and  he  went  away  and  took  some 
papers  out  of  his  grip  that  morning  and  came  back  that  evening  and 

ate  supper.  ,  0 

Q.  What  morning  was  that  that  he  ate  breakfast  at  your  house?— 

A.  May  25,  1909.  ,  ,  0  A  J 

Q.  What  evening  was  it  he  came  back  to  your  house  ?— A.  May  2o 

Senator  Burrows.  He  said  he  came  back  the  same  evening. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes.  .  . 

A.  The  same  evening,  and  he  got  his  grip  and  I  took  him  to  th( 

train  while  I  was  working  on  the  car. 

Q.  Did  he  get  on  your  car  May  25,  1909? — A.  He  got  on  the  cai 

in  the  evening;  yes,  sir.  .  A  ,.  j 

Q.  What  time? — A.  Well,  I  do  not  remember  about  what  time.  J 

went  to  work  in  the  evening,  but  I  went  from  home,  and  he  made  i 
trip  and  a  half  with  me  and  I  left  him  off  at  State  street  and  Ran 
dolph  or  Washington,  I  do  not  know  which,  and  showed  him  the  wat 
to  the  Illinois  Central  depot. 

Q.  You  mean  he  made  a  round  trip  and  a  half? — A.  Downtowi 
and  back  to  Fortieth  and  back  to  State  to  either  Randolph  or  Wash 
ington;  I  am  almost  certain  it  was  Washington,  though. 

Q.  About  what  time  was  it  that  you  separated  from  him  that  h< 
started  to  the  Illinois  Central  depot?— A.  I  should  judge  about  8  o 
9  o’clock;  somewhere  around  there. 

Q.  Did  Sj^dney  Yarborough  say  to  you  where  he  was  going?  A 

Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? — A.  Illinois  Central  depot. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  439 

Q.  Well,  did  he  say  what  train  he  was  going  to  take  or  to  what 
olace? — A.  He  was  going  to  Springfield. 

Q.  Illinois? — A.  On  the  Illinois  Central. 

Q.  Springfield,  Ill.,  on  the  Illinois  Central? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Sydney  Yarborough  sleep  all  night  at  your  place  on  the 
24th  of  May,  1909? — A.  From  1  o’clock,  or  probably  a  little  later; 
*ve  sat  up  and  talked  a  little  before  we  went  to  bed,  until  my  wife 
nade  me  go  to  bed. 

Q.  Where  in  your  house  did  he  sleep  that  night;  what  room? — A. 
In  the  front  room,  front  bedroom — not  the  front  parlor,  but  the  front 
Dedroom. 

Q,  Did  your  wife  know  he  was  coming  to  stay  there  all  night  ? — A. 
Not  that  night;  she  was  expecting  him  the  night  before.  I  told  her 
Dn  Sunday  that  Sydney  and  Otis  both  were  coming  with  me,  but  they 
lid  not  come  home  with  me  on  the  night  of  the  23d.  She  was  expect¬ 
ing  them  on  the  night  of  the  23d. 

Q.  Did  anything  occur  between  Sydney  Yarborough  or  your  wife 
Dr  your  boy  in  connection  with  your  boy’s  birthday — the  anniversary 
Df  his  birth — which  took  place  on  the  26th  of  May  ? — A.  Yes,  sir ;  he 
gave  my  boy  25  cents  to  get  a  ball  mit.  He  wanted  a  bat,  but  he 
would  not  let  him  have  it,  but  to  get  a  ball  mit  instead  for  his  birth- 
lay,  on  the  26th  of  May. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  Sydney  Yarborough  on  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  how  he  came  up  here  from  Springfield  or  how  he  was  going 
back  to  Springfield? — A.  Not  how  he  came  up;  but  that  morning, 
when  he  was  going  away,  on  the  25th,  he  got  his  grip  to  get  some 
papers  and  brought  it  into  the  kitchen. 

Q.  Into  your  kitchen? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  he  said  he  was — I  don’t 
just  remember  exactly  how  he  said  it.  but  he  said  his  railroad  fare  did 
not  cost  him  anything,  that  he  was  riding  on  White’s  pass. 

Q.  I  show  you  pass  No.  131165,  Illinois  Central  Railway  Com¬ 
pany,  and  ask  you  if  you  ever  saw  it  before. — A.  I  saw  that  signa¬ 
ture  of  White’s  before;  I  do  not  know  if  I  saw  that  pass  exactly. 

Q.  Is  that  the  pass,  or  one  like  it,  that  he  showed  you  ? — A.  I  did 
not  see  it  that  morning;  he  just  simply  held  it;  I  did  not  see  the  form 
nf  the  pass,  or  what  it  was;  he  just  said  it  was  a  pass,  White’s,  that 
ne  was  riding  on. 

Q.  I  show  you  ticket  from  book  No.  131165,  coupon  No.  28,  coupon 
pass,  1909,  Illinois  Central  Railway,  and  ask  you  whether  you  ever 
saw  that  before  [handing  paper  to  witness]. — A.  It  is  almost  rubbed 
Dut  here. 

Q.  Yes;  I  know  it  is. — A.  Rubbed  off  so  much  I  can  hardly  tell  it. 
I  believe  that  is  the  one  he  had. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  name  “Charles  White”  on  that  ticket? — A. 

£  Charles  ”  is  plain,  but  “  White  ”  is  not  any  more,  or  the  “A”  you 
:an  hardly  see  it  any  more. 

Q.  Do  you  want  a  pair  of  glasses;  maybe  you  can  see  it  with 
glasses? — A.  Probably  if  you  put  it  over  something  you  can  see.  You 
:an  see  much  plainer  now. 

Q.  Whose  handwriting  is  the  name  “Charles  White”  in? — A. 
Sydney  Yarborough’s. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Do  you  want  to  see  this  [indicating]  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 


440  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  desire  to  offer  this  in  evidence,  Mr.  Chairman 
and  gentlemen. 

Senator  Burrows.  Any  objection? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Nothing  except  the  objection  I  made  before. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  not  identified  the  names. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  has  no  place  in  this  record  at  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  handwriting  of  Sydney 
Yarborough? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  handwriting  of  White?- — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  this  before  ? — A.  Y  es,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Showing  witness  what? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Showing  witness  coupon  No.  28. 

A.  That  is  the  same  one  you  showed  me  a  little  while  ago;  I  saw 
it  before. 

Q.  Where?— A.  I  picked  it  out  of  43  over  at  the  trial  of  Lee  O’-Neil 
Browne  in  the  presence  of  one  of  the  state  attorney’s  assistants. 
Mr.  O’Donnell,  a  gentleman  named  Hull,  I  believe,  and  one  othei 
gentleman — I  don’t  know  his  name — of  the  Illinois  Central. 

Q.  Hull  was  the - A.  The  man  who  had  these  tickets,  and  had 

them  in  his  charge. 

Q.  They  had  how  many  of  them? — A.  Forty-three. 

Q.  Were  they  spread  out  on  a  table? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object,  as  to  whether  they  were  spread  out  on  r 
table  or  not.  He  said  he  took  them  out  of  43. 

Judge  Hanecy.  How  did  you  take  this  one  out  of  the  43? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object,  whether  with  his  left  hand  or  his  rigln 
hand ;  it  don’t  make  any  difference. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  a  question  of  looking  at  them,  not  with  hr 

hands. 

A.  Do  you  want  me  to  explain?  Mr.  O’Donnell  came  and  got  m< 
in  the  hallway  and  asked  me  if  I  thought  I  could  identify  Mr.  Yar 
borough’s  handwriting  and  I  told  him  I  thought  I  could.  He  said 
“  Come  in  here,”  and  took  me  in  the  room  in  the  presence  of  one  o 
the  state  attorney’s  assistants,  Mr.  Hull,  and  another  gentleman 
and  said,  “  See  if  you  can  pick  Sydney  Yarborough’s  signature  ou 
of  there.”  I  started  in,  they  were  standing  up  on  a  stack,  and  , 
went  down  a  little  piece,  and  says,  “  This  is  Otis  Yarborough  s  hand 
writing,  it  is  not  Sydney’s.”  I  picked  out  five  of  Otis. 

Q.  Whose  name  did  he  sign  ? — A.  Charles  A.  White. 

Q.  He  signed  Charles  A.  White? — A.  Tes,  sir. 

Q.  Go  on. — A.  I  came  down  to  that  coupon  and  seen  the  famil 
iarity  of  the  handwriting  and  identified  it  as  Sydney  Yarborough’: 
and  laid  it  to  one  side  and  went  on  through  the  rest,  and  I  picket 
that  one  up  and  held  it  up  and  some  one  said,  I  do  not  remembe: 
who,  “  What  do  you  think  about  that,”  and  I  said,  “  It  is  Sydney 
Yarborough’s  handwriting.” 

Q.  That  is  the  name  of  Charles  A.  White? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  offer  this  in  evidence,  bool 
No.  131165,  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  good  for  one  trij 
within  the  limits  and  upon  the  conditions  named  in  covers,  whei 
detached  by  conductor.  The  name  Charles  A.  White  in  writing,  ant 
then  below"  it  in  print  “  Must  be  signed  in  presence  of  conductor, 
and  then  a  punch — conductor's  punch — through  the  latter  part  of  th 
name  “  White  ”  on  the  left  hand,  across  the  left  hand  coupon  pass 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  441 

1909  ”  and  across  the  right  hand.  “  coupon  No.  *28,”  and  on  the  re¬ 
verse  side  “  honored  for  passage  on  train  No.” — these  words  are  in 
irint,  and  in  blue  pencil  “  17.”  “  Date  ”  in  print  and  then  “  5-25  ” 

n  blue  pencil,  “  1909  ”  in  print.  “  From  Cho,”  1  think,  “  To  Spril  ” 
;omething.  “  Punch  here,”  and  then  “  Browne  ”  in  blue  pencil,  under 
t  “  conductor.”  And  at  the  margin  on  an  upright  line  the  figures 
*  13  ”  with  a  line  under  and  then  “  3.” 

Q.  I  show  you  card  that  I  first  handed  you,  No.  131165,  and  ask 
/oil  in  whose  handwriting  the  words,  the  name  at  the  bottom,  are  ? — 
4..  Charles  A.  White. 

Q.  Is  that  his  handwriting? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  correct  the  reading  of  the 
ignature  to  the  little  coupon,  No.  28  ?  Between  the  word  “  Chas.” 
md  “  White  ”  is  the  letter  “A.” 

Senator  Frazier.  The  exhibit  will  be  copied  in  the  record.  It  was 
lot  necessary  to  read  it  at  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  handwriting  is  Charles  A.  White’s? — A. 
Fes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  train  Sydney  Yarborough  was  going  to 
Springfield  on?— A.  No;  I  did  not.  He  told  me  he  would  leave— 
he  wav  I  understood  him,  he  was  to  leave  between  10  or  11  o’clock, 
;ome  time  around  there,  at  that  time. 

Q.  On  the  night  of  the  25th? — A.  Yes,  sir;  on  the  Illinois  Central. 
Q.  Have  you  seen  White  within  a  day  or  two  of  that  time? — A. 
saw  White  and  Sydney  and  Otis  Yarborough  on  the  Sunday  pre¬ 
vious  to  Lo rimer’s  election  on  the  23d  day  of  May,  1909. 

Q.  Where  ? — A.  I  met  them  at  the  Briggs  House ;  I  got  there  and 
ve  walked  down  State  street  to  Van  Buren  street,  and  at  Washing- 
on— not  Washington,  at  Bandolph  and  La  Salle  streets — and  cfi- 
•ected  the  two  Yarborough  boys  how  to  get  onto  my  car  to  come 
lome  and  stay  all  night  with  me  on  the  night  of  the  23d,  but  they  did 
lot  show  up. 

Q.  They  did  not  show  up? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  White  go,  if  you  know,  on  the  Sunday,  the  23d?— 
V.  Where  did  he  go  ? 

Q.  Yes;  did  he  go  back  to  your  house  or  some  other  place? — A. 
Vo.  sir;  I  left  all  three  of  them  at  Randolph. 

Q.  That  is  the  last  that  you  knew  of  White,  then? — A.  The  last 
.  knew  of  him  from  there? 

Q.  I  mean  at  that  time? — A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Bv  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  You  have  a  very  good  memory,  have  you? — A.  Well,  I  don’t 

mow. 

Q.  Just  look  over  there. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Austrian,  I  am  not  quite  through:  will  you 
>ardon  me? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understood  you  to  say  you  were  through. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  did,  but  I  had  forgotten  one  thing,  if  I  may  be 
lermitted  to  ask  it  now. 

t  Q.  You  were  a  witness  in  the  last  trial  of  People  v.  Browne  here?— 

V.  Yes.  sir. 


442  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  And  you  testified  on  what  date  there?— A.  Well,  I  testified? 
three  or  four  days;  I  was  on  the  stand,  I  think,  four  times. 

Q.  Well,  the  last  time;  do  you  remember  what  the  last  date  was?— 

A.  No;  I  could  not  say  exactly. 

Q.  Did  your  wife  testify  in  that  trial? — A.  Tes,  sir. 

Q.  In  relation  to  these  same  matters? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Were  you  indicted - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  move  that  be  stricken  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  will  be  out.  Go  right  on. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Were  you  indicted  ? — A.  T  es,  sir.^ 

Q.  After  you  testified  in  the  Browne  case? — A.  Tes,  sir. 

Q.  When  wTith  reference  to  the  date  of  your  testimony  ?  A.  Aboua 
the  26tli— I  do  not  know  just  when  I  was  indicted,  to  tell  the  truth 

I  seen  it  in  the  papers  the  first  I  knew  of  it,  and  I  went  up  there - 

Q.  What  were  you  indicted  for? — A.  For  perjury. 

Q.  For  doing  what?— A.  Claiming  that  Sydney  Yarborough  slep 
in  my  house  on  the  night  of  the  24th  day  of  May. 

Q.  You  have  never  been  tried  on  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  indictment  is  still  pending?— A.  I  suppose  so. 

Q.  How  did  you  know  how  long  it  was  after  you  testified  befor 
you  were  indicted? — A.  I  could  not  say  exactly.  I  do  not  knovT  whei 
I  was  indicted  exactly. 

Q.  Do  you  know  abotft  the  time,  whether  a  day  A.  I  shout 
judge - 

Q.  Or  a  week  or - A.  Two  days;  one  or  two  days. 

Q.  Yes;  a  couple  of  days  later.  Were  you  arrested  on  that  occa 

sion  ? — A.  No.  sir.  .  ,  . 

Q.  Well,  did  an  officer— you  never  came  m  there  to  the  state 

attorney’s  office  and  gave  bail  ? — A.  TV  ell,  I  seen  it  in  the  paper,  an  j 
I  went  down  to  see  an  attorney  and  went  with  the  attorney  to  ge 
my  bail.  I  got  my  bail  and  went  to  the  state’s  attorney’s  office. 

Q.  And  were  you  taken  any  place  then  ?- — A.  I  was  taken  up  l 
front  of  Judge  Kersten’s  court  to  give  bail  in  front  of  the  jury  tha 
was  trying  Lee  O'Neill  Browne. 

Q.  The  same  jury  before  whom  you  had  testified  a  couple  of  daj 

before?— A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  And  was  the  court  in  session  and  the  jury  there  and  the  pr( 
ceedings  going  on?— A.  Yes,  sir.  Mr.  — ,  the  lawyer,  I  can  nc 

think  of  his  name  now - 

Q.  Fairbanks?— A.  No;  the  lawyer  of  Mr.  Browne. 

Q.  Mr.  Forrest?— A.  Mr.  Forrest  was  making  an  argument  whe 

I  came  in.  ,  T 

Q,  And  you  were  in  the  charge  of  the  state’s  attorney  f — A.  I  wi 

in  charge  of  the  deputy  sheriff ;  I  do  not  know  the  man  who  took  ir 
up  there.  I  do  not  know;  he  never  put  me  under  arrest;  he  wei 

up  there  with  me. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Mr.  Gloss,  with  whom  did  you  go  over  to  the  criminal  con 
building  that  day?  Speak  up  loud. — A.  Tom  Brady. 

Q.  Tom  Brady  was  your  lawyer,  was  he  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  your  lawyer? — A.  James  Brady. 


investigation  of  charges  against  william  lorimer.  443 

Q.  Tom  Brady  was  the  brother  of  your  lawyer,  wasn’t  he? — A.  I 
)uld  not  say. 

Q.  Tom  Brady  went  over  there  with  you  at  the  direction  of  your 
iwyer,  didn’t  he?— A.  As  I  said  before;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Answer  my  question,  please? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  went  wherever  they  directed  you  to  go ;  to  any  place, 
id  you? — A.  Where  they  directed  me - 

Q.  Will  you  please  answer  the  question? — A.  I  went  where  they 
irected  me. 

Q.  And  your  lawyer  was  with  you  while  you  gave  bond  and  came 
p  and  appeared  before  the  judge? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  forced  to  go  anywhere  where  you  did  not  want  to 
o? — A.  Well,  I  could  not  say  I  was  forced;  I  was  told  to  go  up 
ito  Judge  Kersten’s  court. 

Q.  And  you  went  up  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  your  lawyer  accompanied  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  gave  bail  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Gloss,  come  back.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not 
ou  have  a  good  memory? — A.  Well,  now,  I  do  not  know  as  a  man 
the  judge  of  his  own  memory. 

Q.  Well,  what  do  you  think;  do  you  have  a  good  memory? — A.  I 
idge  I  have  a  fair  memory ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  know  exactly  what  occurred  on  the  24th,  25th,  and 
6th,  1909,  don’t  you? — A.  Not  exactly. 

Q.  Well,  you  know  everything  that  occurred  with  reference  to  the 
•ips  you  made,  the  places  you  made,  the  place  you  met  this  Sydney 
arborough,  don’t  you  ? — A.  The  trips  I  made  on  my  car  ? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  could  not  tell  you  what  time  I  went  to  work  on  my 

ir. 

Q.  You  met  Otis  and  Svdnev  Yarborough  on  the  24th  of  May? — 
..  On  the  24th  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  I  did  not  meet  the  two  Yarboroughs. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  meet  either  one  of  them  ? — A.  I  met  him - 

Q.  Who? — A.  Sydney. 

Q.  Where? — A.  On  my  car. 

Q.  When? — A.  About  9  or  10  o’clock. 

Q.  On  the  24th  of  May,  1909? — A.  That  is  correct;  that  is  correct. 
Q.  And  you  have  that  date  firmly  fixed  in  your  mind,  have  you  ? — 
l.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  can  you  tell  us  the  date — and  you  can  not  tell  us  the  date 
ou  were  indicted  in  Cook  County,  Ill.,  this  year,  wdthin  two  months; 
>  that  correct? — A.  I  do  not  know  when  I  was  indicted. 

Q.  Give  the  date  that  you  went  to  the  criminal  court  and  gave  bail 
n  the  indictment  you  have  spoken  of. — A.  Well,  I  do  not  know  that 
could  exactly  give  the  date. 

Q.  Mr.  Gloss,  you  do  not  want  this  committee  to  understand  from 
nything  you  have  testified  about  that  you  saw  Charles  A.  White  on 
he  night  of  the  24th  of  May,  do  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  on  the  25th  of  May  ? — A.  I  did  not  see  him. 

Q,.  Or  on  the  2Gth  of  May,  1909? — A.  I  did  not  see  him  on  the 
6th ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Nor  the  25th? — A.  Nor  the  25th. 

Q.  Nor  the  24th? — A.  Nor  the  24th. 


444  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Mr.  Gloss,  how  often  did  you  change  your  testimony  in  the 
criminal  court  in  the  case  of  People  v.  Browne?— A.  I  never  did 


change  it. 

Q.  Never  did? — -A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  testify  in  the  case  of  People  v.  Browne  that  you  were 
a  conductor  or  motorman  on  the  trip  that  Sydney  Yarborough  rode 
on  on  the  night  of  the  24th  of  May,  1909,  with  you?— A.  1  was  a 
motorman  *  yes.  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  change  it  at  any  time  with  reference  to  your  hav¬ 
ing  been  a  passenger  on  that  car  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  did  change  your  testimony  in  any  respect  m  the 

case  of  People  v.  Browne? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  never  asked  to  go  back  on  the  stand  for  the  purpose 
of  changing  your  testimony ?— A.  No,  sir;  I  never  did. 

Q.  Mr.  (floss,  are  you  an  expert  of  handwriting?— A.  No,  sir;  1 

do  not  claim  to  be.  .  .  _  .  ,, 

Q.  How  long  have  you  seen  Sydney  or  Otis  1  arborough  write  the 

name  of  Charles  A.  White?— A.  Did  you  say  Sydney  or  Otis? 

Q.  Yes.  sir. — A.  Otis,  I  could  not  say  very  much;  I  had  not  seer 
Otis  write  very  much ;  only  received  letters  from  him ;  but  Sydney’s 
he  used  to  sign  my  name  and  his  name  for  nearly  two  years — I  usee 
to  sign  my  name  under  his  name  for  nearly  two  years. 

Q.  When  he  signed  his  name  over  your  name,  did  he  sign  his  nann 
“  Charles  A.  White  ?  ”— A.  He  used  to  sign  his  name. 

‘  Q.  How  often  have  you  seen  Sydney  or  Otis  Yarborough  sign  th< 
name  of  Charles  A.  White?— A.  I  never  seen  him  sign  the  name  o 

Charles  A.  White.  . 

Q.  You  said  you  picked  it  out.  Did  you  ever  see  a  signature  othe 

than  the  two  signatures  here,  purporting  to  be  signed  by  Sydney  o 
Otis  Yarborough  or  Charles  A.  White  ?— A.  I  do  not  understand  th 


^Q.^Mr.  Gloss,  you  say  you  testified  in  the  criminal  court  and  picket 
out  that  signature  out  of  43 ;  is  that  correct  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Upon  the  trial  in  the  criminal  court,  didn't  you  testify  tha 
another  ticket  or  slip  or  pass  ticket  was  in  the  handwriting  of  Sydne; 
Yarborough,  which,  as  a  matter  fact,  you  thereafter  said  was  no 
in  his  handwriting  but  was  a  copy  ?— A.  I  never  said  anything  aboil 
not  beins;  in  his  handwriting  or  that  it  was  a  copy.  He  handed  me- 
I  had  this  one— he  had  this  one  in  his  hand  and  turned  it  around  an< 
put  another  one  in  his  hand,  and  I  supposed  he  had  the  same  one  1 

his  hand.  .  . 

Q  Didn't  he  ask  vou  to  look  at  it  carefully  and  hand  it  to  tn 

judge? — A.  He  did  not  ask  me  to  hand  it  to  the  judge.  He  hande 

it  to  the  judge  himself.  #  .  ..  a  . 

Q.  But  he  asked  you  to  look  at  it  carefully ?— A.  les,  sir;  he  die 
O  And  then  you' identified  it  as  the  signature  of  Sydney  1  arboi 
oimh  of  Charles  A.  White?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  did;  but  I  did  not  loo 


at  it.  „ 

Q.  Oh.  vou  did  not.  Now,  Mr.  Gloss,  you  say  you  recall  a  convex 

sation  had  with  Mr.  White  on  the  Sunday  prior  to  the  election  c 

Mr.  Lorimer*;  is  that  correct? — A.  bes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  give  the  date  that  that  was  on,  please?— A.  lhat  W£ 

on  the  23d  of  Ma}T,  1909. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  445 

Q.  And  you  and  White  discussed  the  election,  or  coming  election, 

id  you? — A.  Did  not  exactly  discuss  it.  I  just  asked  him - 

Q.  What  did  you  ask  him? — A.  I  told  him  I  supposed  they  would 
lect  a  Senator. 

Q.  What  did  he  say? — A.  He  said — I  asked  him  who  it  would  be, 
nd  he  said,  “  I  don’t  know.” 

Q.  Yes ;  what  did  he  say  ? — A.  He  said,  “  I  don’t  know.” 

Q.  Well,  what  did  you  say  then? — A.  Well,  he  asked  me  what  I*  ' 
new  about  Senator  Lorimer,  and  I  told  him  I  did  not  know  him 
ersonally;  that  the  boys  told  me  that  he  was  a  great  friend  of  the 
treet  car  men  and  done  them  many  favors. 

Q.  Anything  else  ? — A.  That  is  all  I  can  remember  in  regard  to  it. 

Q.  That  is  the  entire  conversation,  is  it  ? — A.  That  is  all  I  can 
emember  in  regard  to  the  Senator. 

Q.  And  that  took  place  a  year  ago  May  of  this  year;  is  that 
orrect? — A.  Twenty-third  of  May,  1909. 

Q.  The  *23d  of  May,  1909  ?  When  for  the  first  time  did  you  detail 
hat  conversation  to  anyone? — A.  Along  the  Saturday  before  the 
,ee  O’Neil  Browne  case. 

Q.  In  June  of  this  year,  wasn’t  it? — A.  It  was  in  June,  I  think. 

Q.  May  or  June  of  this  year? — A.  Yes;  it  was  the  Saturday  before 
le  defense  started  there. 

Q.  That  was  in  the  month  of  June,  1910,  wTasn’t  it? — A.  Well,  they 
ot  a  book  of  mine ;  if  I  had  that,  I  could  tell.  They  got  a  book  of 

line. 

Q,  It  was  this  summer? — A.  I  think  it  was  on  the  18th  day,  either 
lay  or  June. 

Q.  1910? — A.  1910;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  only  time,  up  to  that  time,  that  you  had 
etailed  that  conversation  to  anyone.  Is  that  correct? — A.  Yes, 
r;  that  is  correct. 

Q.  Now,  when  did  you  meet  White  after  the  election  of  Lorimer? — 
l.  When  did  I  meet  him  ? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  met  him  at  the  Briggs  House. 

Q.  When? — A.  It  was  just  a  short  time  before  the  street-car  men’s 
invention  at  Toronto,  Canada ;  I  do  not  remember  the  date. 

Q.  Well,  about  when? — A.  Just  a  short  time — I  do  not  know 
hen  that  wras;  it  was  just  before  Labor  Day-;  I  did  not  see  him  prob- 
bly  for  a  week  or  two. 

Q.  What  month? — A.  August,  I  suppose. 

Q.  August,  1909? — A.  I  think  it  must  be  August;  Labor  Day 
lines  in  September — the  first  Monday  in  September. 

Q.  Well,  August,  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  you  did  have  a  talk  with  him  about  the  election  of  Mr. 
-orimer,  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  did. 

Q.  And  what  did  you  say  to  him  ? — A.  “  I  seen  you  voted  for  Sen- 
tor  Lorimer.” 

Q.  Well,  were  you  surprised  wrhen  you  heard  he  voted  for  Senator 
primer? — A.  Oh,  no. 

Q.  That  had  taken  place  several  months  before;  hadn’t  it? — A. 

»h,  yes. 

Q.  Where  did  that  take  place? — A.  He  said  he  had.  I  asked  him 
ow  it  came  about. 


446  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Yes.— A.  Well,  he  said:  “It  is  like  this,  George.  You  know 
I  am  away  down  on  the  list,  and  when  they  came  down  to  my  nanu 
I  was  excited,  and  I  just  simply  hollered  out  w  Lorimer.’” 

Q.  You  have  known  him  a  good  many  years?— A.  Oh,  live  and  s 

half  years.  .  ,  .  .  .  ^  T  ,,  , 

Q.  That  is  a  good  many  years,  isn’t  it? — A.  Oh,  I  don  t  know. 

Q.  He  was  of  an  excitable. character,  wasn’t  he?— A.  I  don't  know 

^Q^Wellj  did  you  judge  him  to  be  of  an  excitable  character ?- 

^  Q.  Did  you  evince  any  interest  or  surprise  when  he  said,  “  I  votec 
for  him :  I  got  excited?  ”  Did  he  ever  tell  you  he  would  not  vote  fo 

him?— A.  No;  he  never  told  me  that. 

Q.  In  any  discussion  you  ever  had  with  him? — A.  JNo,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  indicate  to  you  whether  or  not  he  had  gotten  anythin* 

for  voting  for  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  say  he  had  not? — A.  I  never  asked  him.  ,. 

q  Mr.  Gloss,  in  any  of  your  conversations  with  Mr.  VV  hite,  cli< 

vou  and  he  ever  discuss  with  reference  to  whether  or  not  there  ha< 
been  money  paid  through  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  for  legis 

lative  matters? — A.  No. 

6.  Never?— A.  Never.  n  .. ,  x  A  9 

Q,  And  he  never  told  you  that  he  did  or  did  not  get  any  money  ?- 

A.  No,  sir;  never  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mrs.  Gloss. 


Mrs  Ell 4  Gloss,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  dul 
sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Hanecy  and  test] 

fied  as  follows :  . 

O  What  is  your  full  name  ? — A.  My  name  is  Mrs.  Ella  Gloss. 

Q*  you  are  the  wife  of  the  last  witness  who  left  the  chair,  ai 

y°Q?’mereedo  you  live?— A.  1925  South  Central  Park  avenue. 

Q,  That  is  your  present  residence  ?— A.  Y  es,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  children? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many?— A.  I  have  three  children.  , 

Q.  Have  you  one  who  has  an  anniversary  of  a  birthday  on  ti 

26th  of  May?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  mat  is  that,  a  boy  or  a  girl?— A.  A  boy. 

Q.  How  old  is  he  ?— A.  Seven  years. 

O.  Seven  years  now? — A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  in  May,  1909  ?-A  Spnngfie  d  avenue. 
Q,  Do  you  remember  the  number?— A.  I  do  not  exactly. 

Q.  Was  it  1064? — A.  Something — ten  something,  106o  01  1064. 
Q*.  Well,  that  is  near  enough.— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  this  city?— A.  Yes,  sir. 


Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  A.  White?  A.  Yes,  sir.. 
Q.  Did  you  ever  live  at  O’Fallon,  Ill.  ?  A.  Tes,  sir. 

/-n  x-\  •  i  i  A  UTlnf  n  f  liOPP  ? - \  1  PS. 


w.  JL^IU  yuu  cvci  w  -  — — ;;?t —  t  '  sr  • 

O.  Did  you  know  Charles  A.  White  there.  A.  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Charles  A.  White  ?  A.  I  sliou 
judge  about  three  years  and  a  half — four  years.. 

Q.  In  O’Fallon  most  of  the  time?— A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  447 


Q.  Have  you  met  him  up  here  occasionally? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Sidney  Yarborough? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Otis  Yarborough  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Sidney  Yarborough? — A.  I  should 
udge  about  the  same  time — five  years. 

Q.  Did  you  know  he  had  been  there  at  O’Fallon? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Your  husband  was  a  street-car  man,  a  conductor  or  motorman, 
O’Fallon,  Ill.*— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  is  here  in  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Y  as  Sidney  Yarborough  at  your  house  on  Springfield  avenue, 
n  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  ? — A.  On  the  night  of  the  24th  of  May. 

Q.  What  May,  of  this  year  or  last  year  ? — A.  Of  last  year. 

Q.  The  24th  of  May  last  year? — A  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  he  come  there? — A.  Why,  he  came  there  in  the 
vening. 

Q.  He  came  in  the  evening? — A.  At  night,  I  should  say:  lie  came 
>  ith  my  husband. 

Q.  Came  when  your  husband  quit  wTork,  and  went  home  with 
im? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  stay  there  .all  night? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  he  have  breakfast  there  the  next  morning? — A.  Yes, 

ir. 


Q.  Did  he  go  away  then  ? — A.  He  went  away ;  yes,  sir ;  for  the  day. 
Q.  Did  he  come  back  again? — A.  Yes,- sir. 

Q.  When? — A.  That  night. 

Q.  That  is  the  night  of  what? — A.  The  25th. 

Q.  Of  May?— A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  get  breakfast  at  vour  house  on  the  morning  of  the 
5th? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  prepare  the  breakfast  and  serve  it  to  him  and  your 
usband? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Sidney  Yarborough  ever  stay  at  your  house  any  other 
ight? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When? — A.  He  stayed  at  this  house  where  I  live  now. 

Q.  When  was  that? — A.  I  should  judge  about  three  or  four  months 


Q.  Did  he  ever  stay  at  your  house  that  you  lived  in  at  South 
pringfield  avenue  except  the  night  you  have  mentioned,  the  24th  of 
fay,  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  night  he  stayed  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anything  occur  at  that  time  when  he  was  there,  or  when  he 
as  leaving,  with  reference  to  the  date  of  the  birthday  of  your  boy  ?— 
w.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  it? — A.  He  gave  my  boy  25  cents. 

Q.  What  for? — A.  For  a  baseball  mitt. 

Q.  What  for? — A.  For  a  mitt. 

Q.  Did  that  have  anything  to  do  with  your  boy’s  birthday  or  the 
iving  of  it  to  him  for  a  birthday  present? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  suppose 
)  be  a  birthday  present. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything;  did  Sidney  Yarborough  say  anything 
bout  a  birthday  present  when  he  gave  the  money  to  the  bov  for  the 
aseball  mitt  ? — A.  Why,  the  boy  was  tormenting  me  for  a  mitt ;  for  a 


448  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


mitt  and  for  a  baseball  bat,  and  he  said,  “  I  will  give  you  a  quarter. 
He  handed  him  a  quarter,  and  said  to  get  a  mitt  with  it. 

Q.  What  room  did  he  sleep  in  in  your  house? — A.  He  slept  m  the 

front  bedroom. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  went  from  your  house  on  the  morning 
of  the  25th;  where  he  went  to? — A.  A  place  called  Wheaton. 

Q.  He  went  to  Wheaton  ? — A.  Y  es,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  leave  his  grip  at  your  house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  he  take  it  away  from  your  house?— A.  The  night  ol 


the  25th.  ,  0  .  ,TT1  ,  T 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  went  to  then? — A.  Why,  as  far  as  1  car 

remember  he  went  to  Springfield ;  he  said  he  was  going  to  Springfield 

Q.  Springfield,  Ill.  ? — A.  Y  es,  sir.  ,  , 

()  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  about  what  road  he  was  going  bad 
to  Springfield  on?— A.  He  said,  at  the  table,  he  was  going  over  th< 

Illinois  Central.  ,  , 

O.  Did  you  testify  in  the  criminal  court  of  this  county,  m  the  cas«. 

of  The  People  of  the  State  of  Illinois  v.  Lee  O'Neil  Browne?— A 

sir.  * 

Q.  You  testified  as  a  witness  there,  did  you*— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  testify  to  these  same  facts  there  5 — A.  i  es,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  your  husband  testify  there*— A.  No,  sir. 
ft  Did  Sidney  Yarborough  tell  you  he  traveled  from  Spnngheh 
here,  or  from  Chicago  back  to  Springfield  on  what— whether  a  ticket 
paid  cash,  or  something  else? — A.  Why,  he  did  not;  he  only  said  h< 

was  traveling  on  a  pass.  , 

Q.  Did  he  say  whose  pass? — A.  He  said  on  Charley  Whites  pass 

Q.  Charles  A.  White’s  pass?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Mrs.  Gloss,  be  seated.  How  old  is  your  youngest  child?  A 

Mv  youngest?  ,  ... 

Q.  Yes.— A.  Will  be  a  year  the  24th  of  this  month. 

q!  You  have  how  many  children?— A.  Three. 

Q.  When  you  lived  at  this  house  that  you  say  you  lived  in  on  th 
24th  of  May,  1909,  did  you  have  any  servants  or  help  in  your  house  5- 


A  No  sir. 

Q.  You  did  your  own  work? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Attended  to  the  three  children?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Cooked  and  everything  else?— A.  Yes,  sir.  _  . 

Q.  There  was  nothing  very  unusual  about  this  occasmii  or  thi 
occurrence  that  you  testified  to  here,  was  there?— A.  What  is  that 
Q.  Nothing  very  unusual  about  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nothing  that  would  make  you  remember  the  conversation  th; 
took  place— the  facts  and  details— any  more  than  any  other  mciden 

was  there? — A.  No,  sir.  .  , 

Senator  Gamble.  Perhaps  she  had  better  turn  around  so  that  v 

can  hear  better. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  I  prefer  it  that  way. 

Q.  Mrs.  Gloss,  did  you  ever  discuss  this  with  anyone  prior  to  Ms 
of  this  vear*— A.  No,  sir;  except  my  husband;  we  talked  it  ov< 

occasionally.  . 

Q.  That  was  after  May  of  this  year,  wasn't  it .  A.  les,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  449 
Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mrs.  Gloss,  were  you  indicted  for  your  Browne 
testimony  in  the  criminal  court? — A.  Not  as  I  know  of. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mrs.  Gloss,  one  question. 

Q.  Was  Sidney  Yarborough  ever  at  your  house,  except  on  this  oc- 
:asion  ? — A.  Oh,  yes ;  he  has  been  to  my  house  quite  a  few  times. 

Q.  When  was-he  there  last?— A.  Well,  now,  the  last  time  he  and 
lis  wife  were  there,  I  should  judge,  about  three  or  four  months  5 
something  like  that. 

Q.  Three  or  more  months  since  they  were  there? — A.  Yes;  just 
his  summer. 

Q.  Could  you  give  the  date  of  that?— A.  No;  I  could  not. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  what  month  it  was?— A.  No;  I  could  not  tell. 

Q.  How  long  did  they  remain  there?— A.  They  stayed  all  night. 

Q.  They  stayed  there  all  night? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Yarborough  and  his  wife? — A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  You  could  not  tell  what  month  that  was?— A.  No;  unless  I 
hink  just  a  while. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Yarbrough — was  Sidney  Yarbrough  ever  at  your 
louse  at  any  time  before  this  last  time? — A.  Oh,  yes;  he  has  made 
isits  during  the  day. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  any  date  that  he  was  there  ? — A.  No ;  I  could 
lot  exactly. 

Q.  How  is  it  that  you  can  remember  that  the  visit  which  you 
lave  referred  to  was  the  24th  of  May,  1909,  when  you  can  not  tell 
ise  even  the  month  of  this  last  visit  ? — A.  Because  I  remember  about 
ny  boy’s  birthday,  and  that  is  the  only  way  I  can  place  it. 

Q.  You  place  it  entirely  by  your  boy’s  birthday? — A.  Yes;  by  my 
ov’s  birthday. 

Q.  What  day  did  he  come  there,  on  the  22d,  23d,  or  24th?— A.  He 
ame  on  the  night  of  the  24th. 

Q.  The  night  of  the  24th? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  of  it  in  any  form? — A.  No;  I 
ever  did. 

Senator  Frazier.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

l  Q*  Mrs*  Gloss,  did  you  see  the  story  of  White,  as  printed  in  the 
ribune? — A.  Well,  I  may  have  seen  it,  but  I  did  not  read  it. 

Q.  Did  you  read  any  of  it? — A.  I  glanced  at  it.  I  have  three 
hildren,  and  I  have  a  great  deal  to  do. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all,  Mrs.  Gloss. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Bell. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  Mr.  E.  J.  Bell. 

E.  J.  Bell,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly  sworn, 
as  examined  by  Judge  Hanecy,  and  testified,  as  follows: 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name? — A.  Edwin  J.  Bell. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  or  employment? — A.  Street  car  con- 

uctor. 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 29 


450  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Where?— A.  On  the  Ogden  avenue  line. 

O  In  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir.  _  „ 

Q*  Where  do  you  live,  Mr.  Bell  ? — A.  At  3820  Ogden  avenue. 

Q.  3820  or  2830  Ogden  avenue?— A.  3820. 

Q.  3820.  Are  you  a  conductor?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  business?— A.  Well,  I  will  be 
with  the  company  three  years  the  10th  of  this  month.  . 

6.  The  name  of  the  company  is  the  Railways  Company,  is  it 
Chicago  Railways  Company?— A.  Chicago  Railways  Company. 

Q.  And  your  trip  is  from  downtown  out  Ogden  avenue  and  back 

again,  is  it  ? — A.  At  the  present  time. 

Q.  Do  you  know  George  Gloss?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  mean  the  one  who  was  m  here  just  a  little  while  ago  and 

whose  wife  iust  left  the  witness  stand?  A.  xes,  sn. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  ? — A.  I  have  known  Mr.  Gloss 

for  about  two  years.  v 

Q.  In  relation— the  past  two  years?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

O.  Did  vou  work  on  the  same  line  with  him  .  A.  Y  es,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  work  together,  one  as  a  motorman  and  the  other  as  a 

conductor? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

O  When  G _ A.  A  little  over  a  year  ago.  .  . 

Q.  How  long  did  you  work  in  that  manner? — A.  Why,  I  workec 

with  Mr.  Gloss  for  about  two  yeais.  at  .  i  • 

Q  Do  you  know  Sydney  or  Otis  Yarborough  ?-A.  I  met  him  once 

Q.  When  ? — A.  I  met  him  a  year  ago  last  May 
Q’.  Which  one?— A.  Sydney  Yarborough. 

Q,  Where  did  you  meet  him?— A.  On  the  Ogden  avenue  car. 

Q.  Whose  car? — A.  It  was  my  car;  but  I  was  on  at  the  time 

mQhWhat  do  you  mean ;  it  was  your  run ?— A.  I  was  not  working 

O  Somebodv  had  taken  your  place? — A.  i  es,  sir. 

Q*  Extra  man.  Were  you  on  the  car?— A.  I  was  on  the  car  whei 

I  was  introduced  to  him.  ,  9  » 

Q.  But  you  were  not  on  the  car  as  a  conductor  or  motoiman .  A 

No,  sir;  I  was  not  on  as  a  conductor. 

Q.  Who  introduced  you  to  him?— A.  Mr.  Gloss. 

Q.  George  Gloss?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  that — what  part  of  the  week  or  month  or  yeai  .  - 

That  was  on  a  Monday  night  in  May,  1909.  _ 

Q.  Where  were  you  going,  or  where  was  you  going  —A.  I  wj 
going  home,  and  what  I  understood  was  that  Mr.  Yarborough  wsj 

going  to  Mr.  Gloss’s  house  to  stay.  .  .  0  .  A  » 

h  Q.  Did  you  travel  along  the  route  with  him?— A.  As  far  as  m 

Q.  And  then  did  you  get  off? — A.  I  got  oft.. 

Q  You  got  off  before  they  did?— A.  Y  es,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  get  off  ?— A.  I  left  them  at  the  car  at  Avers  ai 

Ogden  avenue,  where  I  got  off  at.  .  u  ,  _  „„ 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Yarborough  stayed  that  night fiom  yoi 

own  knowledge,  or  from  what  Sydney  Yarborough  told  you.-* 
No:  only  that  Mr.  Gloss  told  me  he  was  going  to  stay  at  his  lum-e. 

Q.  Mr.  Gloss  told  you  that  in  the  presence  of  Sydney  H 
borough  ?— A.  No,  sir ;  he  told  me  before  Mr.  Y  arbo.rough  came  tliei 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  451 

Q.  How  did  he  come  to  tell  you  that? — A.  He  said  that  on  the 
amday  night  we  were  supposed  to  meet  Sydney  Yarborough. 

Q.  Who  told  you  that,  that  you  were  supposed  to  meet  Sydney 
rarborough  ?— A.  Mr.  Gloss  said  he  was  going  to  meet  a  friend  of  his 
rom  where  he  lived,  but  on  that  Sunday  night  his  friend  did  not 
!iow  up.  The  following  day  I  was  off,  and  I  was  going  home  and 
ccidentally  got  on  my  own  car  at  Twelfth  and  Ogden  avenue,  and  I 
iw  this  gentleman  talking  to  Mr.  Gloss  on  the  front  platform.  Mr. 
lloss  rang  the  bell,  the  conductor  came  out  to  collect  the  fare,  and  I 
poke  to  Mr.  Gloss  then.  Then  Mr.  Gloss  introduced  me  to  Mr.  Yar- 
orough  as  the  gentleman  we  were  supposed  to  meet  the  night  before. 
Q-.  ^  did  1  arborough  have  a  grip  at  that  time? — A.  There  was 
grip  laying  on  the  front  platform. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  on  the  front  platform — who  was  on  the 
rent  platform?— A.  Mr.  Gloss,  Mr.  Yarborough,  and  I. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  What  day  of  the  month - 

Judge  Hanecy.  One  moment,  please.  A  Ye  re  you  before  the  crimi- 
al  court  during  the  Browne  case? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  were  you  asked  by  the  State’s  attorney,  or  one  of  his  as- 
stants,  to  go  out  into  the  crowd  of  men  and  pick  out  the  man  you 
ere  introduced  to? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  Sidney  Yarborough? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  pick  the  right  man  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Mr.  Bell,  what  day  of  the  month  was  this  Sunday  evenin°'  that 
in  have  testified  about  ? — A.  The  23d  of  May. 

Q.  Monday  was  the  24th,  was  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tuesday  was  the  25th? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  evening  did  you  meet  Mr.  Yarborough  ? — A.  Mondav 
^ening. 

Q.  When  you  first  testified  in  the  Browne  trial,  you  stated  the 
renin g  you  met  him  was  the  evening  you  were  working,  didn’t 
iu? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  corrected  that  testimony? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  stated  you  were  not  working  that  night,  but  had  been 
ding  on  your  car? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  this  incident  impress  itself  on  your  mind;  was  there  anv- 
iing  unusual  about  it,  anything  particularly  impressive  about  it, 
'is  whole  occurrence? — A.  No;  the  only  thing  impressive  on  my 
ind  was  Mr.  Gloss  had  said,  “  This  here  is  the  friend  of  mine  that 
e  were  supposed  to  meet  last  night.” 

i  Q.  Nothing  impressed  it  on  your  mind  ? — A.  Yes ;  that  did. 

Q.  And  he  said  that  on  the  night  of  the - A.  23d — 24th. 

Q.  The  24th.  All  right. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  made  that  statement  to  you  on  the  night  of  the  24th.  And 
>u  were  not  working? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  impressed  itself  upon  your  mind,  and  then  you  did 
4  think  of  it  again  afterwards  until  when? — A.  I  never  thought  of 
until  I  got  away  from  the  court  room. 


452  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOR1MER. 


Q.  When  was  that?— A.  The  time  of  the  trial. 

Q.  That  was  in  June  of  this  year,  wasn’t  it?— A.  'ies;  I  believe.it 


was 


Q.  June  or  July  of  this  year?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  from  May,  1909,  until  June  or  July  of  this  year,  the  tad 
never  recurred  to  you  at  all?— A.  Never  recurred  to  me  at  all. 

Q.  Neither  the  conversation  nor  anything  else  ?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q  And  no  one  ever  talked  to  you  about  it?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  But  still  you  can  tell  the  date  and  exactly  what  transpired  01 


this  occasion  ? — A.  J  es,  sir. 


Q.  And  you  can  fix  the  time  as  the  24th  of  May,  can  you  s  A 
Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  the  next. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Bell. 

Senator  Burrows.  These  witnesses  can  be  excused.  I  suppose . 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  desire  them  any  further,  Mr.  Chairman. 

William  M.  Rossell,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  firs 
duly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Judge  Hanecy 
and  testified  as  follows: 

Q  What  is  your  full  name? — A.  W illiam  M.  Rossell. 
q!  Is  there  an  “  e  ”  on  the  end  of  it?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  or  occupation,  Mr.  Rossell .  A.  1  an 

a  machinist  by  occupation.  .  . 

Q.  Are  you  connected  with  any  labor  organizations  m  any  repre 

sentative  capacity  ? — A.  Tes,  sir.  .  . 

O  What  ? _ A.  I  am  president  of  the  International  Association  o 

Machinists,  208,  and  secretary  of  the  joint  labor  legislative  com 

mittee  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly. 

Q.  That  is  the  one  that  Mr.  Lonmer  was  elected  United  State 

Senator  by?— A.  Yes,  sir.  .  «  .  T,  . 

Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  A.  White.  A.  I  do,  sir.  ,  , 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him? — A.  I  met  linn  at  the  forty 

fifth  general  session.  .  .  ,o7 

Q  That  was  the  session  before? — A.  that  was  m  97. 

Q.  1907,  you  mean? — A.  1907 ;  yes,  sir.  . 

()  j)ic|  you  meet  him  frequently  at  these  two  sessions  of  the  legr 

a  o  What  was  Charles  A.  White  doing  at  the  forty-fifth  session  ?- 
\  lie  was  representing  the  amalgamated  street-car  workmei 
looking  after  two  bills  in  the  interest  of  the  street-car  workmen  H 
presented  these  bills  to  the  labor  lobby,  and  they  were  indorsed,  an 
we  worked  for  them  together. 

O.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  with  Charles  A.  White  m  tr 
spring  of  1910  somewhere  on  Madison  street  at  one  of  the  5-cei 
theaters? — A.  Just  outside  of  the  5-cent  theater. 

q  A>ld  you  walk  with  him  from  there  to  the  Palmer  House .  - 

yes  six'  • 

O.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  with  him  ?— A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  In  that  conversation,  did  you  say  to  White :  Tou  are  flvir 

prettv  high  for  a  labor  skate?  ” — A.  I  did.  .  , 

Q.  Did  White,  in  reply,  say  to  you :  “  \es;  I  will  fly  a  damn  sigl 

higher  before  I  get  through?  1 — A.  He  did. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  453 


Q.  Then,  did  White  say  to  you,  “  Do  you  know  anything  about 
enatorial  graft  of  the  legislature?  ”■ — A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  did  you  reply  to  White,  “  No ;  I  was  looking  after  labor 
riatters  and  know  nothing  about  any  other  subject?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  White  then  say  to  you,  “  The  niggers  gave  me  the  worst  of 
t  in  the  legislature,  and  I  am  going  to  make  them  put  me  on  easy 
treet  or  I  will  make  it  damned  hot  for  them?  ” — A.  Substantially 
he  language ;  yes. 

Q.  And  then  did  you  say  to  White  at  that  time,  “  Charley,  labor 
as  many  friends  among  the  leaders  on  both  sides;  don't  do  anything 
bat  will  hurt  labor  organizations  in  the  future  ?  ” — A.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  White  then  say  to  you,  “  I  don’t  give  a  damn  for 
hem,  I  am  looking  out  for  Charley  White?  ” — A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  did  White  then  say  to  you,  “  If  you  know  anything  about 
raft  tell  me  about  it  and  I  will  make  it  worth  your  while?  ” — A.  He 
id. 

Q.  And  did  White  then  say  to  you,  or  did  you  then  say  to  White. 
I  have  no  information  on  the  subject  whatever  and  know  nothing 
f  and  have  heard  nothing  about  graft?  ” — A.  I  did. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 


Bv  Mr.  Austrian  : 

«/ 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  down  to  the  legislature? — A.  Since  the 
orty-third  session,  1903. 

have  never  in  all  your  experience  down  at  Spring- 
eld — you  were  there  ? — A.  At  every  session. 

Q.  And  during  all  your  experience  at  Springfield,  Ill.,  during  the 
arious  sessions  of  the  Illinois  legislature,  vou  never  heard  anythin 
bout  graft? — A.  Oh,  I  read  it  in  the  papers. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  anything  about  graft  down  at  Springfield 
urmg  the  sessions  of  the  legislature ?— A.  I  have  heard  rumors* 

lat  is  all. 

Q.  That  is  all,  is  it? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  were  down  there  when  the  Alden  bill  was  passed? _ A.  No* 

think  that  was  passed  in  the  forty-second. 

Q.  Were  you  down  there  when  the  Miller  bill  was  passed?— 
..  Yes;  I  was  there. 

Q.  Were  you  down  there  when  the  gas  bill  was  passed  ?— A.  I  think 
was. 


Q.  Were  you  down  there  when  the  street-car  frontage  bill  was 
assed  ?  A.  I  don  t  remember  those  things,  because  I  was  instructed 
aly  on  labor  legislation. 

Q.  \  ou  being  down  there,  a  labor  lobbvist,  you  never  heard  anv- 
ling  about  graft  down  there?— A.  In  what  common  talk  you  would 
ear  in  the  newspapers. 

Q.  Was  it  common  talk  down  at  Springfield  with  reference  to  legis- 

tive  graft?— A.  There  is  always  talk  about  any  man  in  public 

te  about  graft. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  whether  there  was  common  talk  down  in 
pnngneld  during  the  sessions  of  the  legislature  when  you  were 
resent  with  reference  to  graft.— A.  There  was  always  talk  of  that 
ind,  but  nothing  definite. 

Q.  Nothing  definite.  You  and  White  never  had  any  trouble  did 
m?— A.  No,  sir. 


454  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  You  are  very  friendly  to  White,  are  you? — A.  I  was  at  the 

forty-sixth  session.  . 

Q.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  are  very  unfriendly  to  White,  are  you 

not? — A.  At  the  present  time? 

Q.  Well,  prior  to  April  30,  1910,  you  were  unfriendly  to  him, 

weren’t  you? — A.  Not  particularly. 

Q.  He  loaned  you  some  money  and  tried  to  collect  it,  didn  t  he,  in 

1907? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  didn’t  loan  you  any  money? — A.  He  loaned  me  money, 

but  I  paid  it  back  to  him.  . 

Q.  Didn’t  he  try  to  collect  it  through  Ed.  Nuckols? — A.  He  tried 

to  collect  it  through  Ed.  Nuckols.  • 

Q.  Didn’t  some  animosity  arise  and  spring  up  by  reason  of  that 

fact? — A.  No;  not  at  all. 

Q.  Not  at  all? — A.  I  paid  him. 

Q.  When  did  you  pay  it? — A.  I  handed  it  to  him  before  the  forty- 
sixth  session,  and  at  the  forty-sixth  session  he  seemed  to  be  ver) 

friendly.  , 

Q.  And  you  have  the  friendliest  feeling  for  him? — A.  Not  now. 
Q.  But  up  to  Mav  1,  1910,  you  had  the  friendliest  feeling?— A 

No -  "  . 

Q.  Now,  you  were  down  at  Springfield  when  Lonmer  was  electee 

United  States  Senator? — A.  I  was. 

Q.  You  were  down  on  the  24th,  25th,  and  26th  of  May? — A.  Nes 
Q.  Did  you  see  White  down  there? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Yarborough  down  there  ? — A.  I  saw  one  of  tin 
Yarboroughs  down  there. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  Sidney  down  there,  did  you? — A.  I  don 
know  one  from  the  other.  I  saw  one  of  them. 

Q.  You  only  saw  one  of  them  ?— A.  As  I  remember. 

Q.  You  didn’t  see  the  other,  did  you?— A.  Not  that  I  remember. 
Q.  Now,  then,  Mr.  Rossell,  you  did  not  have  any  talk  with  Whit 
down  there  during  that  session  of  the  legislature,  did  you,  with  ref 
erence  to  the  election  of  United  States  Senator  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nor  immediately  after  that,  while  the  assembly  was  still  in  ses¬ 
sion? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Not  at  all? — A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  any  talk  down  at  Springfield  immediately  befor 
and  immediately  after  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  with  referenc 
to  anv  graft  at  Springfield? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  ’None  at  all?— A.  I  heard  talk  on  the  street  and  rumor  aroun 

like  that,  but  common  ordinary  talk - 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  anything  in  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  or  th 
lobby  of  the  capitol  of  it  going  on  ?— A.  I  heard  a  lot  of  talk  going  oi 
Q.  That  is  all  you  heard,  is  it? — A.  That  is  all. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  man  by  the  name  of  James  Doyle? — A.  Jarru 
Doyle,  of  Springfield? 

Q.  Well,  he  is  a  labor  leader? — A.  Yes;  he  is  president  of  tfc 
machinists. 

Q.  Is  that  his  home,  Springfield? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  you  if  you  knew  White? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  455 

I 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  difference  does  it  make  whether  Doyle  asked 
him  if  he  knew  White  or  not? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  leading  up  to  the  subject-matter.  Did  he 
ask  you  anything  about  White? — A.  He  did. 

Q.  When  ? — A.  During  the  session. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  Just  a  moment.  The  question  is  did 
Dovle  ask  the  witness  with  reference  to  whether  he  knew  White. 
How  is  that  material? 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  is  the  only  materiality,  it  seems  to  me,  in  view 
of  his  cross-examination - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  prefer  that  counsel  puts  his  question.  I  with¬ 
draw  the  objection.  I  prefer  to  have  the  question  put  rather  than 
have  counsel  explain. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  objection  is  withdrawn.  Is  the  question 
withdrawn  ? 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q,  What  was  it  he  asked  you  about  White? — A.  He  asked  me 
what  kind  of  a  fellow  White  was. 

Q.  Well,  what  else  was  said? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Senator  Frazier.  I  can  not  see  how  you  can  prove  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  gentleman  was  allowed  to  go  on  and  ask  if 
he  heard  any  rumors  or  anything  about  graft,  and  I  propose  to 
show  that  he  did  and  it  was  in  relation  to  White. 

Senator  Frazier.  If  White  said  anything  that  would  be  material 
here,  but  what  this  witness  said  to  somebody  else  would  certainly  be 
hearsay  in  about  the  second  degree. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  unless  he  connects  it  in  some  way  with 
White,  of  course  it  would  not  be  competent  any  more  than  the  rumors 
he  asked  about.  All  he  asked  about  rumors  is  hearsay. 

Senator  Frazier.  I  do  not  think  any  of  it  is  competent.  I  do  not 
think  it  has  any  business  in  this  record,  any  of  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  thought  so,  too;  I  thought  it  should  go  all  out. 

Senator  Frazier.  Then,  why  did  you  not  object  to  it? 

Judge  FIanecy.  Because  when  T  did  to  matters  of  that  kind,  this 
honorable  committee  said,  “Let  him  answer  it;  we  will  hear  it  any¬ 
how.”  My  only  apology  for  sitting  idly  by  and  not  objecting  is, 
when  I  did  object  earlier  iikthe  proceeding,  they  were  told  to  answer, 
and  I  concluded  the  policy  of  the  committee  was  to  hear  it  anyway, 
and  I  did  not  care  to  appear  to  be  an  obstructionist. 

Senator  Frazier.  There  is  no  such  policy  on  the  part  of  the  com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  will  recall  the  question  put  to  this  witness 
was,  “  Did  WLite  ask  you  at  the  Palmer  House  whether  or  not  you 
heard  anything  in  reference  to  senatorial  graft?  ”  That  was  the 
question  put.  He  said,  “  I  answered  4  No.’  ”  That  is  why  I  cross- 
examined  him  with  reference  to  what  he  heard. 

Judge  Hanecy.  About  any  graft. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  he  heard  at  Springfield. 


456  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  White  or  White  with  you  about  the 
bill  or  the  bills  that  Doyle  talked  with  you  about? — A.  I  don’t  quite 
get  that  clear. 

Q.  I  will  withdraw  that.  You  talked  with  Doyle  about  White, 
did  you? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  Doyle  asked  you  about  White  ? — A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  did  he  ask  you  about  White  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  what  Doyle  asked  him. 

Q,  Well,  did  you  talk  with  White  afterwards  about  the  things  that 
Doyle  asked  you  about? — A.  Not  with  White;  I  talked  with  Doyle. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  in  the  presence  of  White  about  it? — A.  No - 

Q.  About  what  Doyle  had  said  to  you? — A.  No;  I  talked  to  White 
himself. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  what  I  say,  to  White  himself? — A.  Yes;  but  not 
in  the  presence  of  Doyle. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  to  White  himself  about  the  subject-matter  that 
Doyle  asked  you  about? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  that  is  what  I  want  to  know.  Now,  what  was  it  that 
Doyle  said  to  you  that  you  afterwards  told  White  about? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  haven’t  any  objection  to  his  asking  what  White 
said  to  him,  or  what  he  said  to  White,  but  I  have  to  what  Doyle  said. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  he  told  White  what  Doyle  said  about  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then  it  would  be  a  conversation  between  him  and 
White. 

Judge  Hanecy.  All  I  want  to  show  is  the  conversation  between 
him  and  Doyle  and  then  that  he  told  White  that  conversation. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  White  the  talk  you  had  with  Doyle? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  it;  what  did  you  tell  White? — A.  I  said  to  White: 
“  Charley,  what  have  you  got  your  mitt  out  against  labor  legislation 
for?  ”  He  said:  “What  do  you  mean?  ”  I  said:  “  Jim  Doyle  com¬ 
plains  to  me  that  you  want  money  on  this  electrification  bill,  and 
told  him  that  you  weren’t  out  of  the  woods  yet,  and  you  are  not 
living  on  wind.  What  kind  of  a  labor  man  do  you  consider  your¬ 
self?  ”  And  he  said  it  was  a  lie. 

Q.  White  said  it  was? — A.  White  said  it  was  a  lie,  and  he  said 
he  would  see  Doyle  about  it.  I  don’t  know  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Q.  Is  that  all  that  wTas  said? — A.  I  told  him  that  he  ought  to  be 
ashamed  of  himself,  which  was  true. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Did  you  think  it  was  a  lie? — A.  What,  about  White? 

Q.  Yes? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  thought  it  wTas  the  truth,  didn’t  you? — A.  Sure;  I  think 
that  he  had  his  mitt  out  for  anything. 

Q.  You  wouldn’t,  would  you? — A.  No;  I  wouldn’t;  and  nobody 
has  got  anything  on  me. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  down  to  Springfield  ? — A.  I  have  been 
down  there  since  the  forty-third  session. 

Q.  The  forty-third  session;  when  was  that  session? — A.  1903. 

Q.  That  is  seven  years  you  have  been  down  to  Springfield.— A. 
Yes;  and  been  reelected. 

Q.  As  a  labor  lobbyist? — A.  Representing  the  Chicago  Federa¬ 
tion;  yes. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  457 
Q.  For  seven  years? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  else  have  you  done? — A.  I  have  worked  at  my  craft, 
ly  trade,  and  organizing  work. 

Q.  When  have  you  Worked  at  your  craft  or  trade? — A.  Last 
dnter. 

Q.  How  long? — A.  About  four  months. 

Q,  Well,  did  you  work  during  the  year  1908  at  that? — A.  1908? 

Q.  Yes;  last  winter? — A.  1909  and  1910? 

Q.  I  mean  1909;  that  is  all  you  worked  during  the  year  1909? — 
..  I  worked  at  organization  work - 

Q.  Just  a  moment,  now.  When  did  you  work  at  your  trade  or 
raft  in  the  preceding  year?— A.  I  didn’t  quite  catch  that? 

Q.  Well,  in  the  year  1908,  how  long  did  you  work  at  your  trade? _ 

,.  I  was  doing  organization  work  all  the  time  for  labor  unions.  I 
idn’t  do  a  tap  at  my  trade. 

Q.  Now,  in  1907,  how  much  did  you  do  at  your  trade? — A.  I  done 
rganization  work. 

Q.  And  1906,  did  you  work  at  your  trade? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  1905,  did  you  work  at  your  trade? — A.  No,  sir;  I  done  oro-ani- 
ition  work. 

Q.  In  1904,  did  you  work  at  your  trade?— A.  No,  sir;  organization 

ork. 

Q.  Then  your  entire  time,  with  the  exception  of  four  months,  so 
ir  as  working  at  your  trade  was  concerned,  was  nothing,  was  it  ?— 
..  No,  siree;  it  has  been  organization  work,  and  that  will  show  it;  all 
ver  this  State  and  this  country. 

Q.  And  barring  the  four  months  you  have  detailed  you  have  not 

gen  working  at  your  trade  in  the  last  seven  years,  have  you  ? _ A. 

ot  at  the  craft;  no,  sir.  I  didn’t  need  to;  I  was  paid  bv  mv  organi- 
ition  to  organize. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  F.  G.  Hull. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Hull. 

Fred  G.  Hull,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  dulv 
vorn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Judge  Hanecy  and  tes- 

fied  as  follows: 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name,  Mr.  Hull? — A.  Fred  G.  Hull. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  or  occupation? — A.  I  am  secretary  to 
le  chief  clerk  of  the  president  of  the  Illinois  Central. 

Q.  The  chief  clerk  of  Mr.  Harrihan’s,  the  president  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Do  you  have  to  do  with  passes  that  are  issued  by  that  road  to 
ifferent  parties?— A.  I  have  more  or  less  to  do  with  it. 

Q.  How  are  the  passes  issued.  Won’t  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell 
us  committee  briefly  whether  there  is  a  separate  pass  for  each  one, 

•  a  book  of  passes,  or  how? — A.  You  mean  passes  for  the  members 
the  Illinois  legislature? 

Q.  Members  of  the  legislature.  When  a  member  of  the  legislature 
<ints  a  pass  does  he  sign  a  card  like  that? — A.  No;  he  makes  a 
ritten  request  on  the  district  attorney  and  the  district  attorney  sends 
to  our  office  and  the  pass  is  issued. 

Q.  What  function  does  the  card  fill?— A.  This  is  sent  out,  that  pass 
)ok,  and  signed  by  the  gentleman  to  whom  it  is  issued. 

Q.  After  the  party  to  whom  it  is  issued  receives  the  book,  he  simis 
'at  card,  and  then  what  does  he  do  with  it?— A.  Mails  it  to  the 
e  si  dent  of  the  Illinois  Central. 


458  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

JHr.^  Austrian.  When  you  say  “  that  card,  pleas©  identify  it  as 

being  the  same  card  you  showed  him.  .....  . , 

Judo'e  Hanecy.  It  is  the  same  card,  No.  13165,  which  is  m  evidence 

v  o 

liere# 

Q„  Is  that  the  card  that  was  sent  in  by  Charles  A.  White?  A 

It  is,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

Q.  For  the  pass  book.  Now,  what  was  sent  to  him  when  tins  caicl 

was  signed  beside  this  card? — A.  A  coupon  book. 

Q.  How  many  coupons  ? — A.  Forty-eight.  . 

Q.  And  each  coupon  represented  what  ? — A.  Each  coupon  is  good 

for  a  ride  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Q.  Is  that  one  of  the  coupons  in  that  book?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  all  of  the  coupons  numbered  the  same  as  the  number  or 

this  card  ?— A.  They  are. 

Q.  And  they  are  all  the  same  number  ?— A.  1  es. 

Q.  13165  ? — A.  Each  coupon  has  that  number  on  it ;  yes,  sir. 

O.  And  when  a  party  using  it  rides  on  it,  what  does  he  do  witl 
reference  to  the  coupon?— A.  He  signs  it  in  the  presence  of  the  con 

ductor. 

Q,  Signs  the  coupon?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  White,  do  you (  A 
y o  sir 

Q  Is  that  one  of  the  coupons  issued  by  your  road— the  Illinoi: 
Central— to  Charles  A.  White  under  this  application  and  receipt  (- 
A.  Yes;  a  pass  book  of  that  number  was  issued  to  him. 

Q.  Does  that  indicate  that  somebody  rode  on  that  pass? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Is  that  the  same  pass  that  the  witness,  Gloss,  iden 

titled  as  being  in  his  handwriting?  „ 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  it  is  signed  dunes  A.  White. 

The  Witness.  This  shows  that  somebody  has  ridden  on  it  and  tna 

Q.  The  signature  “Charles  A.  White”  on  the  face  of  it  indicate 
that  somebody  who.  signed  that  name  rode  on  that  pass?  A.  ie> 

glj* 

Q.  From  where  to  where? — A.  Chicago  to  Springfield  on  May  2» 

train  No.  17.  „  .  ™  0  a  * 

Q.  What  time  did  train  No.  1<  leave  from  Chicago  for  Sprmgfiel 

at  that  time? — A.  They  are  due  to  leave  at  10.15  p.  m. 

Q  And  would  arrive  in  Springfield  at  what  time?  # 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  is  that  important  to  go  into  all  thos 
matters  ^ 

Judge  Hanecy.  Not  unless  it  is  questioned,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Senator  Burrows.  Well,  I  would  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  does  the  writing  on  the  back  ot  that  pa; 
indicate*— A.  That  is  made  out  by  our  conductor.  , 

Q.  The  word  “  Brown  ”  indicates  the  name  of  the  conductor  ( — *, 

Yes  sir. 

Q’  And  the  other  indicates  the  date,  and  so  forth  ?— A.  The  nun 

ber  and  train  it  was  on. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Wait  a  minute.  Did  you  take  these  passes  oi 
prior  to  the  criminal  court  in  the  trial  of  People  against  Browne. 
A.  Yes. 


INVESTIGATION-  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LO RIMER.  459 

Q.  And  did  you  take  out  all  of  the  passes;  all  of  the  coupons? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  of  them  were  there? — A.  I  believe  there  were  seven 
nissing;  that  would  make  41. 

Q.  Do  you  know  George  Gloss  ? — A.  I  know  him  by  sight  only. 

Q.  You  knew  him  at  that  time  as  a  witness  who  testified  on  that 
rial? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  present  when  he  was  handed  the  41  or  43  of  those 
■oupons  for  the  purpose  of  having  him  pick  out  the  one  signed  by 
Sidney  Yarborough? — A.  I  was. 

Q.  What  one  did  he  pick  out  ? — A.  He  picked  out  the  one  you  have. 
Q.  This  one  in  my  hand,  coupon  No.  28? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  how  many  were  present  there  or  in  what  shape  were  they 
landed  to  him,  for  the  purpose  of  having  him  pick  out  one? — A.  We 
vere  in  the  witness  room  there ;  I  think  Mr.  O’Donnell  was  present, 
he  assistant  state’s  attorney  and  myself  and  Mr.  Gloss,  and  there  may 
lave  been  others  there. 

Q.  Were,  the  coupons  handed  to  him  in  a  bundle  or  package  or 
pread  out  or  how  Avere  they,  that  is  what  I  want  to  know? — A. 
they  were  handed  to  him  in  an  envelope  and  he  spread  them  out 
limself,  as  I  remember  it. 

Q.  He  took  them  out  of  the  envelope,  41  or  43,  spread  them  out 
nd  picked  out  this  one? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  only  one  that  was  dated  the  24th  of 
day,  1909,  is  it  not? — A.  That  was  dated  the  25th  of  May. 

Q.  I  mean  the  25tli  of  May. — A.  Yes,  that  is  the  only  one. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  one  of  the  whole  package? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Judge  Hanecy.  There  is  no  date  of  the  25th  of  May  on  the  face 
f  the  pass;  is  there  on  the  coupon? — A.  Not  on  the  face;  there  is 
>n  the  back. 

Q.  There  isn’t  anything  on  the  face  of  it  to  indicate  the  25th  of 
day  or  any  other  date,  is  there? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  On  the  face  of  it,  I  mean  ? — A.  Oh,  no,  not  on  the  face  of  it. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Gloss  pick  it  out  by  looking  at  the  face  of  it  only  and 
,'ithout  looking  at  the  back  of  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Without  looking  at  the  date  at  all.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  are  sure  of  that  are  you? — A.  Yes. 

Senator  Gamble.  How  long  would  it  take  for  train  No.  17  leaving 
tere  as  you  state  at  10.15  in  the  evening  to  reach  Springfield? — A. 
)ue  there,  I  believe,  at  4  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

Senator  Gamble.  All  right;  that  is  all. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Who  is  your  next  witness,  Judge? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  anybody  have  access  to  those  coupons  for  a 
ear  or  more  before  you  took  them  out  and  showed  them  to  Mr.  Gloss 
here? — A.  No;  that  Avas  the  first  time  they  had  been  taken  out. 
Senator  Burroavs.  Who  is  your  next  witness? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all  the  witnesses  I  have,  Mr.  Chairman, 
filled  up  pretty  nearly  the  time  we  were  to  take — no,  not  quite. 
Senator  Burroavs.  Perhaps  Ave  can  have  some  of  the  other  Avit- 
esses.  Do  you  know  where  they  are,  Mr.  Austrian? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understand  they  are  not  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  have  you  any  other  witnesses? 


460 


INVESTIGATION 


OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  none;  no,  sir.  Mr.  English  is  one.  I  never 
talked  with  Mr.  English,  but  from  what  I  understand  his  testimony 
to  be  he  will  be  a  witness  used  on  rebuttal. 

Senator  Gamble.  You  do  not  care  to  put  him  on  here  now? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  is  not  here;  but  I  would  like  the  privilege 
of  talking  to  him;  from  what  I  understand  his  testimony  to  be  he 
will  be  used  on  rebuttal. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  will  be  here  in  the  morning? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  will  be  here  to-morrow  morning. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  have  you  any  witnesses  you  can  call  at 

this  time? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  we  have  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  have  no  further  witnesses  at  the  present 
time.  Have  you,  Mr.  Austrian,  any  other  witnesses  at  this  time  that 

you  desire  called. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  those  three. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  will  see  that  they  are  subpoenaed  tor  to¬ 
morrow’s  session  ?  . , 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  believe  we  can ;  I  do  not  think  they  reside 

here. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  are  their  names? 

Mr. "Austrian.  I  gave  their  names  this  morning — Tyrrell,  Shaw, 
and  Donaghue. 

Senator  Burrows.  Where  do  they  reside? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  know;  I  will  look  it  up.  Those  are  the 

witnesses  brought  out  by  Air.  Groves. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Then  we  will  adjourn  until  to-morrow  morning 

at  10  o’clock. 

TUESDAY,  OCTOBER  4,  1910. 


SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  ERTAGLEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 


At  10  o'clock  a.  m.  the  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
The  following  members  of  the  subcommittee  being  present,  where¬ 
upon  the  following  proceedings  were  had:  Hon.  J.  C.  Burrows,  chair¬ 
man.  Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble,  Hon.  W.  B.  Heyburn,  Hon.  James  H. 
Paynter,  Hon.  Joseph  F.  Johnston,  and  Hon.  James  B.  Fraziei . 
Senator  Burrows.  I  understand  you  desire  to  recall  some  one,  Mr. 

Austrian.  _  T  ,  ,  , 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  Jacob  GroAres — or  J.  GroATes,  I  do  not  kno»A 

whether  it  is  Jacob  or  not. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Is  Mr.  Groves  here?  .  , 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  know  what  his  name  is;  he  will  be  here 

in  a  minute. 


Jacob  Gro\res,  recalled,  and  testified  further,  as  follows: 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Groves,  yesterday  when  you  were  on  the  stand 
this  question  was  put  to  you:  “  State  what,  if  any,  conversation  you 
had  with  Tyrrell.”  The  official  record  shows  that  you  replied 
“  Mr.  Tyrrell  told  me  he  got  $1,000  for  voting  for  Lorimer.” 

A.  That  is  a  mistake.  He  didn’t  tell  me  any  such  thing.  He  saio 
he  could.  “  There  was  $1,000  in  sight,”  or  something  like  that,  *  l 

I  would  vote  for  Lorimer.”  #  Q  t  tt 

Q.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  did  not  vote  for  Lorimer ? — A.  IT 

did  not. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  461 


Mr.  Austrian.  The  witness  notified  me  that  he  desired  to  correct 
diat  statement. 

Senator  Paynter.  Yes;  I  didn’t  understand  him  to  say  that 
my  way. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  way  the  record  reads.  I  didn’t  under¬ 
stand  it,  either,  but  that  is  the  way  the  record  reads.  That  is  all. 


Examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  You  are  not  friendly  to  Senator  Lorimer,  are  you? _ A.  I  have 

io  reasons  for  not  being  friendly  to  him;  I  never  spoke  to  the  gentle- 
nan  in  my  life. 

,  Q-  1  didn’t  ask  you  if  you  had  any  reasons ;  I  asked  you  for  the 
;act.  1  ou  are  not  friendly  to  him,  are  you?— A.  I  have  no  reasons 
or  not  being  friendly;  I  am  as  friendly  to  him  as  I  would  be  to  any 
)ther  stranger.  I  am  not  acquainted  with  him;  never  spoke  to  him 
n  my  life. 

Q.  You  were  politically  acquainted?— A.  Oh,  yes. 

Q.  You  are  one  way  politically  and  he  another,  and  you  knew  him 
>olitically  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  a  long  time,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  knew  him — of  him quite  a 

rhile;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who,  Judge? 

Judge  ITanecy.  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  You  were  not  friendly  to  him  during  the  session  of  the  legis- 
ature,  were  you? — A.  I  hardly  know  what  you  mean.  Of  course,  I 
°n’t  know  that, I  have  anything  against  him  as  a  gentleman.  Of 

ourse  I  could  not  see  my  way  clear  to  vote  for  him  for  United  States 
ienator. 


Q.  Well,  I  am  not  asking  you  to  differentiate  between  the  different 
apacities — his  capacity  as  a  gentleman  or  a  family  man  or  a  church 
lan.  I  am  talking  of  William  Lorimer  in  his  entirety.  You  were 
ot  friendly  to  him  during  the  last  session? — A.  I  could  not  say 
)f  course  in  a  way  I  was  not.  Of  course  I  would  not  support  him 
or  the  United  States  Senate.  Otherwise  I  have  nothing  particular 
gainst  the  gentleman. 

Q.  Had  you  any  religious  prejudice  against  him?— A.  No  sir 
Q.  Or  his  family  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  To  what  denomination  do  you  belong? — A.  I  belono-  to  the 
big  denomination  ” — I  belong  to  no  church  at  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  could  not  hear  what  you  said. 

A.  I  have  no  membership  in  any  church. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Do  you  belong  to  any  secret  societies? 

A.  Yes  sir. 

0.  What? — A.  The  Odd  Fellows. 

Q.  Any  other? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  like  to  ask  counsel  if  it  is  necessary 
)  ask  that  question.  Membership  in  secret  societies  is  not  ascertained 

i  that  way. 

Judge  IIanecy.  Mr.  Senator,  I  did  not  intend  to  go  into  that.  T 
mply  wanted  to  know  if  he  had  anv  membership  in  any  secret 
>cieties  prejudicial  to  Mr.  Lorimer,  or  because  of  his  politics,  or  his 
<mily,  and  that  is  a  very  active  and  potent  factor  in  some  parts  of 

us  State. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 


462  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  Mr.  Chairman;  that  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  would  like  to  inquire  of  counsel  now  it  Mr. 

Groves  will  be  required  to  remain  here? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  he  ought  to.  Mr.  Tyrrell  will  be  heie  to¬ 
morrow  morning,  the  sergeant-at-arms  informs  me,  and  I  think  JMr. 
Groves  ought  to  remain  until  Mr.  Tyrrell  has  testified. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  will  remain,  then,  Mr.  Groves. 

Judo-e  Hanecy.  None  of  the  three  gentlemen  you  have  referred 

to _ Mr.  Donaghue,  Mr.  Tyrrell,  or  Mr.  Shaw— told  you  they  had 

received  any  money  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer,  did  they .  A. 
No,  sir;  they  did  not. 

Q.  And  none  of  them  said  they  saw  any  money  s — A.  JNo,  sir. 

Q.  No  one  of  those  three  gentlemen  told  you  that  he  received  any 
other  thino-  of  value  for  voting  for  Lorimer,  or  on  condition  that  he 
would  vote  for  Lorimer,  did  he?— A.  Mr.  Tyrrell,  you  know,  on  con¬ 
dition  he  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer - 

Senator  Burrows.  You  dropped  your  voice. 

A.  Mr.  Tyrrell,  on  condition - 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  said  he  could  get  something? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  He  did  not  say  he  could  get  any  money;  what  he  could  get?— 
A.  Yes;  he  said  he  could  have  earned  a  thousand  dollars.  ^ 

Q.  He  could  have  earned  a  thousand  dollars? — A.  Tes;  if  he 

would  vote  for  Lorimer. 

Q.  If  he  would  vote  for  Lorimer?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  have  often  heard  the  report  down  there,  or  the  remark 
jocular  or  other,  by  members  of  the  house  or  senate,  that  if  they  die 
certain  things  they  could  get  certain  advantages  by  way  of  something 
of  value  or  patronage,  haven’t  you? — A.  I  have  heard  of  sucl 
things,  yes.  but  no  propositions  of  that  kind  were  made  to  me. 

Q.  You  have  heard  other  members  speak  of  it  that  u  If  I  woulc 
do  a  certain  thing  I  could  get  a  certain  thing  or  things?  ”— A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  was  common  talk  there  among  the  members  at  dilleren 
times,  sometimes  jocular  and  sometimes  semijocular,  wasn  t  it  .—A 
It  was  probably  true.  I  was  approached  but  one  time  on  anythin* 
like  that,  and  I  gave  it  in  my  evidence  yesterday ;  I  was  approache( 

just  the  one  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

The  Witness.  Can’t  I  be  excused?  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian  desires  you  to  remain,  Mr.  Groves 
Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  we  will  have  to  recall  him. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  think  this  witness  will  have  to  lemain. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  this  witness  ought  to  remain. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Yes.  .  ,  ,,  ^  r  , 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  understands  that  Mr.  Lnglis. 

is  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  hold  him  for  rebuttal. 

Senator  Burrows.  For  rebuttal,  and  not  use  him  now? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  And  also  George  Alscliuler. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Alscliuler? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes.  Judge  Hanecy,  have  you  any  witness* 
you  can  call  ? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  463 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  do  anything  this  honorable  committee  re- 
uests  me  to,  but  I  submit  I  should  not  be  compelled  to  put  in  my 
vidence  piecemeal.  They  ought  to  close  their  case  before  I  am  com- 
>elled  to  put  on  any  of  mine.  I  do  not  want  to  put  it  in  piecemeal. 
Vhen  they  were  not  ready  I  have  acted  as  filling-in  man. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  can  you  call  any  at  this  time  without 
mbarrassment  to  either  of  these  witnesses? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman;  I  can  call  Mr.  McCann  or 
Ir.  Doyle.  Call  Mr.  Doyle. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Doyle. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  Mr.  Dovle  brought  in. 

James  W.  Doyle,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly 
worn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  in  chief  by"  Judge  Hanecy, 
nd  testified  as  follows : 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  is  your  full  name,  please? — A.  James  W. 

)ovle. 

Q.  W  hat  is  your  business  or  occupation  ? — A.  I  am  a  machinist. 
Senator  Burrows.  It  is  impossible  to  hear  your  answers. — A.  I  am 
machinist. 

Judge  Hanecy.  For  what  company? — A.  I  am  employed  by  the 
Tabash  Bailroad  Company. 

Q.  What  doing? — A.  As  a  machinist  part  of  the  time,  and  part 
f  the  time  as  inspector. 

Q.  Inspecting  what  kind  of  machinery? — A.  Engines. 

Q.  Well,  is  that  before  they  are  purchased,  or  before  they  are 
ondemned,  or  when?— A.  Well,  sometimes  they  buy  engines ‘from 
ther  roads,  and  they  are  to  be  overhauled  at  the  locomotive  works, 
nd  they  send  an  inspector  there  to  oversee  them.  Other  times  they 
uy  them  new,  and  they  send  inspectors  there  also. 

Q*  And  what  is  that  what  you  are  doing? — A.  I  have  done  it* 
es.  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  doing  it? — A.  I  have  only  been  in¬ 
jecting  this  year. 

Q.  Have  you  been  doing  it  this  year? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  a  practical  machinist  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  connected  with  the  Wabash  Rail¬ 
ed? — A.  About  five  years. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  before  that  time?— A.  I  worked  for 
le  Illinois  Central. 

Q.  In  the  same  capacity? — A.  As  a  machinist. 

Q.  How  long  with  that  company? — A.  I  was  there  six  or  seven 
jars;  I  don’t  just  remember  which. 

Q.  Are  you  connected  with  any  labor  organizations  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What? — A.  I  am  a  member  of  the  International  Association  of 
Machinists. 

Q.  Any  others?— A.  No;  well,  I  was  a  member  of  the  State  Federa- 
on  of  Labor,  locally. 

Q.  Do  you  occupy  any  official  position  in  any  labor  organization  or 
bor  organizations? — A.  Not  this  year;  I  don’t. 

Q.  Did  you  last  year  or  previous  to  that  time? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  What? — A.  I  was  president  of  the  local. 

Q.  What  local — of  your  craft? — A,  Yes,  sir. 


464  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Did  you  have  any  official  position  which  took  you  to  Spring- 
field  during  the  session  of  the  last  legislature?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  that  during  the  main  session  of  the  last  legislature '  A.  1 
live  in  Springfield ;  I  will  correct  that;  it  was  my  home 

Q  Were  you  there  officially,  in  connection  with  legislation  or  any¬ 
thing  of  that  kind,  during  the  last  regular  session  of  the  legislature?— 

\  Yes  sir 

‘  O  What  did  you  represent  there*— A.  Well,  there  were  certain 
measures  before 'the  session  which  were  detrimental  to  organized 
labor  and  railroad  companies,  and  there  was  a  meeting  called  ot  the 
different  crafts,  and  they  decided  to  stand  by  the  railroads  and  op¬ 
pose  some  of  this  legislation,  and  with  that  in  view  there  was  a  lobby 
of  members  from  the  different  crafts  sent,  and  I  was  sent  from  the 


V).  General  legislation  injuriously  affecting  both  labor  and  rail¬ 
roads*— A.  It  affected  the  earning  powers  of  the  railroad  companies. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  know  Charles  A.  White*— A.  I  met  him  there. 

Q.  Where? — A.  At  that  session  of  the  legislature. 

Q.  The  last  session*— A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  is  while  lie  was  a  member?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  before  that  time?  A.  no,  sir.  e 

O  How  well  did  you  become  acquainted  with  him  during  that 
session  of  the  legislature ?— A.  Not  very  well  acquainted.  I  was  in 
troduced  to  him.  and  probably  spoke  to  him,  saying  How  do  yoi 
do,”  or  something  like  that. 

6  Did  you  have  anv  talk  with  him  with  reference  to  the  legislatioi 
which  concerned  railroad  organizations  and  that  you  were  concernec 
in? — I  do  not  understand  that  question. 

Q.  Did  you  have  anv  talk  with  him  about  any  bills  which  wer< 
before  the  legislature  during  that  session?— A.  No;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  about  legislation— labor  legis 

lation?— A.  No,  sir.  .  .  _  .  . 

Q.  What  talk  did  you  have  with  him?— A.  I  was  m  the  senat 

chamber  one  morning  with  the  labor  lobby.  Y  hile  I  mixed  up  wit! 
them  a  good  deal,  Twas  not  a  member  of  it.  They  had  somethin* 
on  with  the  senators  which  did  not  interest  me,  and  I  had  no  busi 
ness  there,  and  I  left  there.  I  started  across  to  the  house,  that  1 
right  across  the  rotunda,  and  in  going  across  I  met  this  man  Y  hite 
and  he  said  to  me,  lie  savs,  “  Doyle  ’’—now,  I  don’t  know  whether  h 
said  “  Dovle  ”  or  not.  but  he  said,  “  How  is  railroad  legislation  coni 
ing?”  and  I  said.  “All  right.”  He  said:  “You  fellows  are  th 
damnedest  cheapest  bunch  I  ever  saw.”  He  said :  MVliat  do  vo 
expect  us  fellows  to  live  on — wind — around  here?  I  said: 
don’t  know ;  I  haven’t  got  anything  to  give  you,  and  I  could  not  cit 
you  where  you  could  get  anything.”  I  said:  “  I  am  surprised  at  you 
the  way  you  were  elected  and  you  approach  me  that  way  and  sa 
that.”  *  He  said :  “  I  represent  organized  labor  here  as  much  as  am 
thing  else.”  There  were  some  parties  stepped  up  and  the  converse 
tion 'stopped.  I  went  on  to  the  house  of  representatives,  or  the  hal 

Q.  Was  that  all  the  conversation? — A.  That  was  all  that  da^  . 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  after  that?— A.  The  next  day  we  had  a  hi  li¬ 
the  boiler-inspection  bill — that  had  been  on  for  third  reading  n 
several  days.  He  stepped  up  to  me,  and  he  says:  “  I  see  one  of  y or 
bills  is  on  for  third  reading  to-day,’  and  I  said,  “  I  notice  it  is. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  465 

5aid:  “  You  fellows  are  not  out  of  the  woods  yet.;  you  had  better  get 
msy.”  I  said:  “  We  are  doing  all  we  can,”  and  i  walked  away. 

Q.  What  did  you  understand  him  to  mean  when  he  told  you  you 

night  to  get  busy? — A.  I  took  it  for  granted  I  ought  to  see  some- 

)ody. 

Q.  That  you  ought  to  see  somebody  ? — A.  That  I  ought  to  do  that 
>r  to  have  somebody  else  to. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  See  them  for  what? — A.  Well,  to  see  that  we 
lad  the  members  lined  up  so  that  they  would  not  vote  in  favor  of  the 
)ill,  I  presume.  That  is  the  way  I  took  it.  I  did  not  enter  into  a 
hscussion  of  it.  I  was  not  there  to  make  any  report  of  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  understand  that  there  was  anything  paid 
>r  any  consideration  given  for  stopping  that  legislation  ?— A.  No, 

ir;  I  did  not,  I  never  heard  the  question  of  a  penny  mentioned  bv 

ur  people.  J 

Q.  Or  by  Mr.  White  or  anybody  else? — A.  Nothing  more  than  the 
ray  he  approached  me  in  the  rotunda  was  all,  and  again  in  the  hall 
here.  I  judged  that  a  man  that  would  say  that  to  me— I  judged  that 
e  was  open  for  engagements. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr  Austrian.  I  move  what  the  witness  should  judge  be  stricken 
ut,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Was  that  your  opinion? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  what  his  opinion  is. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  know;  but - 

Austrian.  Just  a  minute;  I  would  like  a  ruling. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  part  of  the  answer  may  go  out. 

Judge  Hanecy.  When  was  this  talk,  or  those  talks,  you  had  with 
Ir.  \\  lute  with  reference  to  the  time  William  Lorimer  was  elected 
imted  States  Senator;  was  it  before  or  after?— A.  It  was  seven  or 

'ght  days  before;  I  do  not  just  remember.  I  tried  to  fix  the  date 
ut  I  could  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  When  for  the  first  time,  Mr.  Dovle,  did  you  tell  anyone  this 

ory  you  have  now  testified  to?— A.  Well _ 

Q.  rJ  he  date,  please,  is  what  I  want. — A.  The  date? 

Q.  Yes;  what  month  or  what  year  ?— A.  Well,  it  was  in  May.  1909, 

ie  day  the  second  conversation  came  up;  I  only  mentioned  in 

irt - 

Q.  To  whom? — A.  William  Kosell. 

Q.  Nosell  was  the  same  man  who  testified  here?— A.  I  don’t  know 
Q.  You  didn’t  see  him  here? — A.  No. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  know  he  had  testified  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  ^ou  were  called  as  a  witness  on  the  second  trial  of  the  Browne 
se,  were  you  not?— A.  The  first  and  second,  both. 

Q.  Both?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Nosell  is  the  same  Nosell  who  testified  here,  and  on  the  first  and 
corn!  trial? — A.  The  same  man  T  spoke  of;  yes. 

Q.  Mr.  Doyle,  did  you  mention  it  to  anyone  else? — A.  Not  ami  in 
fill  the  2d  of  May,  t  think,  last. 

Q.  Of  this  year? — A.  This  year. 

70924° — S.  TiO|>.  0-12.  01  -3 _ 30 


466  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  After  the  publication  of  this  story?— A.  After  the  publicatior 
of  this  story 


Q.  Yes.— A.  (Continuing.)  I  was  ordered  to  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  if  you  were  ordered  any  way  or  not.  J 
am  asking  you  if  you  have  told  anyone  else. — A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  did  tell  some  one  on  the  2d  of  May  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  answers  it? — A.  All  right.  . 

Q.  You  say,  Mr.  Doyle,  this  conversation  took  place  m  May,  1909! 

did  it  not? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  About  the  18th — somewhere  about  the  18th  or  20th  ot  May  «— 
A.  Somewhere  along  in  there;  I  could  not  give  you  the  exact  date. 

Q.  1909?— A.  Yes.  .  1  x  ™  . 

Q.  Previous  to  that  time  you  had  been  introduced  to  Mr.  White 

formally  introduced  to  him,  I  take  it?  A.  Tes. 

Q.  And  you  had  said,  “  How  do  you  do  ?  ”  to  him  when  you  me 

him?— A.  Occasionally ;  yes.  , 

Q.  And  that  is  all  there  was  to  your  relation  with  him,  or  he  t< 

you;  is  that  correct? — A.  Yes;  up  to  that  time. 

Q.  Up  to  that  time?— A.  Yes.  . 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Doyle,  the  first  time  that  you  and  Mr.  White  eve 
engaged  in  any  conversation  was  the  conversation  that  you  hav 
detailed  to  this  committee;  is  that  correct?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  first  conversation  he  engaged  in  with  you  he  solicited  : 
bribe,  didn’t  he?— A.  Well,  I  would  judge  that  it  was  that. 

Q.  There  is  no  dispute  about  it,  is  there,  m  your  mind  s  A.  JNo 

in  my  opinion  there  is  not,  .  _  j  ,0  A  w  v 

Q.  He  wanted  you  to  pay  him  money;  is  that  correct  s  A.  Wei 

I _ l  would  have — I  will  make  a  statement  in  regard  to  that..  I  wa 

acquainted  with  a  gentleman  that  is  an  attorney  and  who  is  quit 
prominent  in  railroad  circles,  and  I  was  raised  in  the  same  town  wit 
him  Quite  frequently  when  nothing  would  be  doing  Ave  would  si 
down  and  talk  about  things  which  had  happened  when  we  were  youn 

men — he  is  about  my  age  or  a  little  older.  .  .  . 

Q,  The  attorney?— A.  The  attorney.  He  is  a  prominent  railroa 

man  and  presume  I  figured  that  was  why  Mr.  White  approached  m 
Q.  Because  you  were  seen  with  an  attorney  ? — A.  He  is  a  prommer 

railroad  man,  a  prominent  railroad  attorney. 

Q.  You  say  you  knew  how  White  came  to  the  legislature  ( — A. 
knew  he  was  elected — I  was  given  to  understand  he  was  elected  by  ttj 

labor  people.  .  ,  ,  ,  , 

Q,  You  knew  prior  to  that  time  he  had  been  m  the  legislature  as 

lobbyist? — A.  No.  .  ,  .  ,  , , 

Q.'  In  the  interest  of  labor? — A.  I  don’t  think  I  knew  him  at  tm 

time,  or  knew  it,  ^  .  .  « 

Q.  This  prominent  railroad  attorney,  what  was  his  name?—, 

John  G.  Drennan. 

Q,  John  G.  Drennan,  of  the  Illinois  Central?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  John  G.  Drennan  ever  tell  you  his  relationship  wit 

Gloss?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  anything  about  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Doyle,  did  you  tell  John  G.  Drennan  of  this  conversatic 

you  had  with  White ? — A.  No,  sir.  . 

Q.  Then  you  said  to  White,  “  I  have  not  got  anything  for  you; 
is  that  correct? — A.  That  is  about  what  I  said;  yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  467 

Q.  You  did  not  have  anything  for  him? — A.  No. 

S'  y°u  were  there  as  a  representative  of  labor 

30? — A.  Yes,  sir.  ’ 

Q.  But.  notwithstanding  that  fact,  you  talked  to  him  the  next 
a>  aiA^  ^0U  to  ^  £et  kusy  ”  again  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  At  that  time  he  knew  who  you  were,  didn’t  he  ? _ A.  Yes. 

e  did  the  firSt  time  he  t  know  who  y°u  were  ? — A.  I*  judge 

Q.  Did  you  judge  he  knew  you  as  a  representative  of  labor? _ A 

tlnnk  as  near  as  I  can  remember,  that  I  saw  Mr.  White  in  the 
ibor  lobby,  and  I  was  introduced  to  him  as  “President  of  157*  ” 
lat  is  our  local.  ’ 

Q.  Then,  he  knew  the  first  time  that  he  talked  to  you  that  you 
ere  there  m  the  interests  of  labor,  didn’t  he? _ A.  Yes  ^ 

Q.  And  notwithstanding  that,  he  attempted  to  solicit  a  bribe  from 
ni ;  isn’t  that  the  fact  *— A.  That  is  the  way  I  took  it 

•  c  ,  ,  »he  Alab?Tr  m?n’  so  far  as  y°u  know,  bribed  anybody  in 
pimgfield? — A.  No;  they  never  had  any  money.  '  " 

mey  ?— \  ^Ves  kn°Wn  that  kb°r  organizations  haven’t  got  any 

ashed  you  to  “come  across.”  Is  that  a  fact? _ 

Q.  I  here  is  no  doubt  about  that  in  your  mind,  is  there* _ A  No- 

ere  is  no  doubt  m  my  mind  about  that.  ’  ’ 

Q.  Now,  you  have  spoken  about  the  boiler-inspection  bill?— 

.  •  i  es. 

Q.  1  ou  did  testify  with  reference  to  the  boiler- inspection  bill  ?— 

-  •  JL  GS» 

frT  hAiS  ™nversation  with  you  that  he  wanted  to 
bateover  1  ’  M  y0U?— A‘  There  was  no  reference  made  to  any  bill 

Sj,01!1'^  testify  with  reference  to  the  boiler-inspection  bill*— 

.  Hie  boiler-inspection  bill  was  on  for  third  reading. 

Q.  That  was  a  bill  favoring  laborites  or  workingmen?— A  No  sir 

Q.  h  avonng  the  railroads  ?-A.  It  was  detrimental  to  both’ the 
ulroads  and  the  labor  organizations— men  employed  by  the  rail 
ids  as  mechanics.  J  J 

Senator  Gamble.  Just  a  minute,  here  is  Senator  Cummins 
( 1  hereupon  Senator  Albert  B.  Cummins,  from  Iowa,  arrived  and 
a  few  minutes  at  the  hearing.)  ’ 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  through,  Mr.  Chairman 
Vlr.  Austrian.  I  have  finished. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  want  this  witness  anv  more? 

t  r'i  Tr1RIAN*  No’  Mr*  Chairman;  he  may  be  excused. 

ludge  Hanecy.  I  would  like  to  have  Mr.  Brown  called  next— Mr 

B.  Brown. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  Mr.  Brown. 

[<.  L.  Brown,  called  as  a  witne,ss  herein,  having  been  first  duly 

'  I?  YoS(inat°I  nURR()WS’  was  examined  in  chief  by  Judge  Hanecy 
1  testified  as  follows: 

).  Y  hat  is  your  full  name? — A.  F.  L.  Brown. 

I  Y  hat  is  your  business  or  occupation? — A.  My  occupation? 


468  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Yes. — A.  Conductor  on  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  held  that  position? — A.  About  sixtee 

years. 

Q.  Where  is  your  run? — A.  Chicago  to  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Where  was  it  in  May,  1909  ?— A.  I  was  there,  on  the  St.  Lou 

run  then. 

Q.  The  same  run? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  make  the  run  on  the  evening  or  the  night  of  the  25t 
of  May,  1909? — A.  Yes;  I  did. 

Q.  From  Chicago  to  St.  Louis?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  the  paper  I  show  you  now,  coupon  No.  28,  an 
tell  this  honorable  committee  whether  you  ever  saw  it  before  ( 

not? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  have.  I 

Q.  When  did  you  see  it  and  where?— A.  On  the  5th  month,  tl 
25th  day,  1909,  train  No.  IT,  on  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad. 

Q.  That  is  the  25th  of  May,  1909? — A.  1  es,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  train  17  leave  Chicago?— A.  10.15  p.  m. 

Q.  For  where? — A.  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Was  that  coupon  pass  taken  up  b}^  you  on  that  train? — A.  Ye 
sir. 

Q.  In  whose  handwriting  is  the  writing  on  the  back  of  the  co; 
pon? — A.  That  is  my  signature. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  put  on  the  “  5/29  - A.  Yes,  sir;  I  did. 

Q.  (Continuing).  “09?” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  “  17?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  Is  all  of  the  writing  on  the  back  of  that  coupon  in  your  han 
writing? — A.  Yes,  sir;  the  passenger  also  occupied  lower  3  in  car  1 

S.  i  .  •  "XT  n 


or.  rather,  lower  13  in  car  No.  3. 


Q.  Whose  name  was  signed  on  the  face  of  the  coupon?  A. 
could  not  tell  you  that,  Mister,  that  is  so  dim. 

Q.  I  understand  that  when  learned  counsel,  in  the  case  of  People 
Browne,  fingered  it  so  much  during  that  trial 
Senator  Burrows.  Now,  Judge. 


Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  we  have  had  all  about  the  finger-mark  sto 
yesterdav. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  not  said  which  counsel  yet. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  know. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  would  hardly  be  material  here,  anyway. 
The  Witness.  I  can't  tell  you;  it  is  too  dim. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  can’t  tell,  can  you? — A.  No,  sir;  if  you  hac 

magnifving  glass,  you  might  tell  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment;  that  was  testified  to  by  the  cle 
from  the  Illinois  Central  yesterday,  and  there  is  no  dispute  about 
the  name  “  Charles  A.  White  ”  appears  upon  that  instrument, 
never  saw  it  before,  but  I  will  admit  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Who  wrote  the  name,  “  Charles  A.  White,  on  t 
front  of  the  pass? — A.  The  gentleman  that  handed  me  that  pass. 

Q.  Was  that  signed  in  your  presence,  the  name  “  Charles 
White,”  signed  in  your  presence? — A.  Yes. 

Q,  By  the  party  who  rode  on  the  pass? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  There  is  a  punch  mark  at  the  end;  what  punch  mark  is  that? 
A.  That  is  my  punch  mark  of  that  date. 

Q.  It  goes  through,  and  words  are  on  the  back  of  the  pass? — 

Yes. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  469 


Q.  That  was  your  conductor’s  punch? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Your  punch? — A.  My  punch  and  my  signature,  also.  It  is  for 
>th  purposes. 

Q.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Brown,  it  may  be  understood— I  presume  that 

the  coupon  you  showed  the  witness - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  read  the  number  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  coupon  you  showed  the  witness  yesterday. 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  read  it  into  the  record,  No.  28. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  the  same  one  you  showed  the  witness  yester- 
iy? 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  same  one. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Brown,  you  don’t  want  this  committee  to 
iderstand  that  you  knew,  or  now  know,  or  ever  did  know  who 
resented  that  ticket  or  pass  ticket  to  you,  do  you? — A.  No,  sir;  it 
too  long  ago  to  remember. 

Q.  You  tried  to  pick  the  man  out  in  the  criminal  court  on  the 
cond  trial  of  Browne,  and  you  couldn’t  do  it,  isn’t  that  right?— A.  I 
eked  out  some  one  who  looked  like  him. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  picked  out  three — he  picked  out  five. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  said  those  men’s  faces  looked  familiar? — A.  I 
jn’t  remember. 

Q.  You  did  not — you  do  not  undertake  to  pick  out  or  designate 
ie  man  who  wrote  that  on  5/25/09? — A.  No;  that  would  be  too 
r  away. 

Q.  You  do  not? — A.  No. 

Q.  That  is  all  I  am  asking  you. — A.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Redirect  examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  man  who  rode  on  the  pass  or  coupon  was 
rhite,  or  somebody  else? 

Mr.  Austrian*  I  object  to  what  he  thought;  it  is  perfectly  imma- 
rial  now  what  he  thought. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  he  thought  that  somebody  else  was  riding  on 

at,  he  may  have - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Ask  him  questions. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Do  you  know  the  man  who  rode  on  that  pass? — 
.  I  did  not  know  the  gentleman. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  his  name  was? 

Mr.  Austrian,  Just  a  minute,  I  object. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  not  proper. 

A.  I  think  his  name  is  White. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  move  that  be  stricken  out. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  ask  him - 

Mr.  Ax  jstrian.  Wait  until  I  get  a  ruling.  You  have  got  an  an- 
ver  there  that  I  want  stricken  out  of  the  record. 

Senator  Burrows.  This  is  hardly  necessary. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  have  a  riding?  I  move  tha  the  stricken  out. 
Senator  Burrows.  That  will  go  out. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  you  had  known  it  was  anybody  other  than  the 
ime  signed  to  the  ticket  or  to  the  coupon,  would  you  have  allowed 
m  to  ride  on  that  pass  ? 


470  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

A.  No,  sir;  I  would  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  I  object;  and  I  move  that  that  answer  b 
stricken  out. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  That  is  a  question  I  wanted  to  ask  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  I  move  it  be  stricken  out.  It  may  be  viol  at 
ing  the  rules  of  the  Illinois  Central,  but  if  it  has  any  place  in  thi 
record,  I  can  not  conceive  of  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  man  represented  himself  a 
White,  and  this  witness  supposed  him  to  be  White,  then  it  is  com 
petent,  as  part  of  the  res  gestae  in  that  transaction,  part  of  the  thing 
which  took  place  at  that  time.  If  he  knew  it  was  somebody  else  thai 
White,  then  a  different  condition  would  present  itself.  That  is  all 
Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  other  witnesses? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute.  I  move  that  the  last  answer  b 
stricken  out.  The  witness  answered  over  my  objection  before  tb 
chairman  had  an  opportunity  to  rule — if  he  would  have  allowed  hin 
to  ride  if  he  thought  it  was  some  one  else  other  than  White.  H< 
answered  that  over  my  objection,  and  I  move  the  answer  be  strickei 
out. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Is  there  anything  further  Avith  this  witness? 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  I  may  have  a  ruling  on  that  last  answer - 

Senator  Burroavs.  I  think,  Mr.  Austrian,  that  Ave  will  let  tha 
answer  stand. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Very  well. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Call  Mr.  Alschuler. 

George  W.  Alschuler,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  firs 
duly  sworn  by  Senator  BurroAvs,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Judg 
Hanecy,  and  testified  as  folloAvs: 

Q.  You  may  state  your  full  name. — A.  George  W.  Alschuler. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  or  occupation? — A.  Real  estate,  insur 
ance,  and  loans. 

Q.  Where? — A.  Aurora,  Ill. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  business? — A.  For  twenty-fiv 
years. 

Q.  You  are  a  brother  of  Samuel  Alschuler,  who  was  the  Demo 
cratic  candidate  for  governor  in  this  State  in  1904? — A.  1900. 

Q.  1900? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  legislature  noAv? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  IIoav  long  have  you  been? — A.  Well,  I  am  completing  on 
term. 

Q,  This  is  your - A.  First  term. 

Q,  This  is  your  first  term? — A.  Yes;  first  term. 

Q.  You  are  a  Democratic  member,  are  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  From  Aurora? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  home  of - A.  Kane  and  Kendall  countie? 

they  compose  the  district. 

Q.  Senator  Hopkins  is  in  your  home  town? — A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q,.  Were  you  in  the  legislature  that  elected  William  Lorime: 
United  States  Senator? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  471 
Q.  Did  you  vote  for  him? — Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  sit? — I  will  withdraw  that.  Were  you  one  of 
hat  was  called  the  Browne  faction  on  the  Democratic  side? — A. 
es,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  sit  in  the  house,  or  in  the  joint  session,  with  ref- 
:ence  to  Lee  O’Neil  Browne’s  seat? — A.  Well,  I  sat  right  back  of 
ree  O’Neil  Browne,  the  third  seat  in. 

Q.  The  third  seat  back  of  him  ? — A.  No ;  the  next  row  back  of  him ; 
le  third  seat  in;  Lee  sitting  there  [indicating],  and  I  would  be 
tting  here  [indicating],  jmu  see. 

Q.  You  were  in  the  next  row,  and  three  seats  to  the  right  or  left? — 

..  Three  seats  to  the  right. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Browne  sitting  on  the  aisle  or  inside? — A.  On  the 
sle. 

Q.  Do  you  know  George  Myers — his  name  is  George  W.  Myers,  a 
ember  of  the  house  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  he  sit,  with  reference  to  you  and  Lee  O’Neil 
rowne? — A.  Well,  now,  I  am  not  positive.  He  sat  a  few  seats  back 
E  me ;  I  don’t  know  the  location  now. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  on  a  straight  line  back  of  you? — A.  No;  I  think 
3  was  to  the  left  of  me. 

Q.  To  the  left? — A.  And  a  few  seats  back. 

Q.  Was  he  nearer  Browne  than  you,  or  farther  away? — A.  Farther 
,vay. 

Q.  Would  he  have  to  pass  the  aisle  you  went  out  of,  or  the  row  of 
:ats  you  went  out  between,  in  order  to  get  to  Mr.  Browne’s  seat? — •  . 

.  Yes. 

Q.  Were  you  giving  attention  to  Mr.  Browne  during  the  ballot 
>r  United  States  Senator,  at  which  William  Lorimer  was  elected 
nited  States  Senator  on  that  day? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  sitting  right 
ick  of  him. 

Q.  Were  you  giving  any  special  attention  as  to  what  was  going  on 
itween  him — between  him  and  others  on  that  occasion? — A.  My 
res  were  on  him,  naturally.  He  being  the  minority  leader,  my  eyes 
ould  naturally  be  on  Mr.  Browne. 

Q.  Did  George  W.  Myers  go  from  his  seat  to  Lee  O’Neil  Browne’s 
at  during  the  roll  call  of  voting  for  United  States  Senator  at  the 
ant  session? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  go  there  at  any  time  during  that  joint  session? — A. 
es,  sir. 

Q.  I  mean  during  the  balloting? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  page  by  the  name  of  McCann? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  he  at  that  time? — A.  He  was  standing  at  the  desk 
J  Mr.  Browne,  right  in  front  of  him,  and  to  the  side,  moving  around 
at  desk. 

Q.  Was  he  there  all  of  the  time,  or  only  part  of  the  time? — A.  He 
as  there  during  the  time  that  the  roll  call  was  being  had,  and  im- 
ediately  before  the  senate  came  in.  I  noticed  him  there.  He  went 
>wn  to  the  clerk  at  that  time  and  got  some  roll  calls  and  brought 
iem  back,  and  handed  me  one  of  the  roll  calls. 

Q.  Was  there  any  chair  vacant,  any  seat  at  the  desk,  regular  seat, 
Ijoining  Mr.  Browne  during  the  roll  call  for  United  States  Sen- 
or? — A.  No,  sir. 


472  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Was  there  any  chair  brought  into  the  aisle  adjoining  or  near 
Mr.  Browne’s  seat  for  Mr.  Myers  or  anybody  else  to  sit  down  upon 
and  talk  with  Mr.  Browne? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nobody  offered  you  anything  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer,  did 
they  ? — A.  Well,  now,  I  should  say  not. 

Q.  You  did  vote  for  him,  although  you  are  a  Democrat,  and  he  a 
Republican? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Why? — A.  Well,  it  will  take  me  a  little  time  to  explain  that. 

Q.  As  briefly  as  you  can. — A.  I  will  be  as  brief  as  I  can.  You 
see,  I  am  a  resident  of  Aurora,  the  same  town  that  Senator  Hopkins 
is  [laughter].  For  many  years  we  have  been  bitterly  opposed  and 
antagonistic  to  one  another.  I  am  a  Democrat,  and  as  a  Democrat 
Mr.  Hopkins  has  done  everything  that  he  could  to  belittle  me  ever 
since  I  was  a  voter  and  ever  since  I  got  into  politics.  Mr.  Hopkins 
was  a  prominent  citizen  there,  but  at  any  time  and  at  every  time  that 
he  had  an  opportunity  lie  has  belittled  me - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  care  to  go  into  all  of  the  details. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  that  go  out. — A.  All  right. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  and  Senator  Hopkins  were  hostile? — A. 
Very  much  so. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  is  sufficient.  That  other  is  stricken  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  it  is  stricken  out. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  was  because  of  personal  relations  between  you 
and  Mr.  Hopkins  that  you  did  not  vote  for  him,  and  did  vote  for 
.William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator.  Is  that  right? — A. 
Yes;  and  not  with  me  only,  but  with  my  friends — well,  I  had  better 
not  mention  any  more,  because  I  would  be  getting  back  into  the  same 
line  of  talk  that  I  did  before. 

Q.  Were  you,  or  not,  active  in  getting  other  Democrats  to  vote  for 
William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  on  that  roll  call  of  that 
joint  session? — A.  Well,  not  particularly  at  that  roll  call.  I  had 
spoken  to  a  few  of  them,  I  can  not  remember  who,  but  from  the  first 
day  I  was  down  there  I  was  willing  to  talk,  not  incessantly,  but  most 
of  my  talk  was  to  defeat  Mr.  Hopkins,  if  possible,  and  I  was  willing 
to  vote  for  any  reputable  candidate  in  order  to  beat  him,  knowing 
that  the  Democrats  had  no  opportunity  to  win. 

Q.  Had  you,  before  the  joint  session  commenced  that  day,  or  the 
night  before,  or  at  any  time  before,  talked  with  many  or  few  of 
your  friends,  or  others  on  the  Democratic  side,  about  voting  for 
William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  The  witness  has  explained  his  activity. 
Now,  it  does  not  make  it  any  stronger  to  have  counsel  embody 
his  testimony  in  the  question  the  way  he  wants  it  and  then  ask  him 
to  answer. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  understand  the  form  of  the  question  is  objec¬ 
tionable.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  change  that,  if  the  chairman  desires.  Put 

it  this  way:  #  ] 

Q.  What  was  the  fact  as  to  whether  or  not  you  were  active  before 
the  commencement  of  that  roll  call  of  that  joint  session  that  day 
about  getting  friends  or  others  to  vote  for  Lorimer? — A.  For  several 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOKIMEK.  473 

lays  previous  to  the  roll  call,  knowing  that  Mr.  Lorimer’s  name  was 
*oing  to  appear  as  a  candidate,  I  endeavored  to  get  as  many  of  my 
Democratic  friends  as  I  could  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lo rimer;  yes,  sir;  I 
lid  that. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  succeed  or  not? — A.  Yes;  I  think  I  did.  A  great 
nany  of  them  mentioned  the  fact  that  they  voted  for  him;  that  my 
nfluence  had  something  to  do  with  it.  I  did  the  best  I  could. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute.  On  page  807  in  the  official  record, 
n  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Meyers,  the  question  is  put  (you  don’t  need 
o  take  this,  Mr.  Reporter),  “How  long  before  the  taking  of  the 
Tote  for  United  States  Senator?”  Then  the  answer  is,  “15  or  20 
lays;  I  don’t  know  just  how  long;  just  a  short  time.” 

I  don’t  think  that  the  judge  and  I  will  have  any  dispute  about  that, 
rnt  it  should  be  “  15  or  20  minutes  ”  instead  of  “  days.” 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  a  stenographic  error. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  should  be  “15  or  20  minutes;”  it  will  be  cor¬ 
seted  by  consent,  I  take  it? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  there  is  no  question  about  it,  it  may  be  so 
orrected. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  was  the  page  of  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Page  807.  It  says  “  15  or  20  days,”  and  that  would 
lot  make  any  sense. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian: 

Mr.  Alschuler,  you  say  you  knew  his  name — Mr.  Lorimer’s  name— 
?as  going  to  be  suggested? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Hadn’t  his  name  been  suggested  to  the  joint  assemblv  some 
lays  before  the  26th  of  May? — A.  He  had  been  voted  for  before. 

Q.  Direct  your  voice  over  there,  so  they  can  all  hear  you. — A.  He 
tad  received  a  vote  or  two. 

Q.  For  how  many  days  prior  to  the  26th  of  May? — A.  I  can  not 

ell  you. 

Q.  If  the  record  shows  the  13th  of  May,  1909,  would  you  say  that 
?as  about  correct? — A.  I  would  not  say  when  he  did  receive  a  vote 

>efore. 

Q.  Give  us  your  best  recollection  as  to  when  he  did. — A.  When  he 
eceived  one  vote? 

Q.  When  he  received  any  vote,  whether  it  was  one  or  more? — A. 
can  not  say.  It  was  at  different  times,  I  think ;  I  am  not  positive. 

Q.  When  did  you  understand  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  a  candidate?— 

L  Why,  I  should  say  about — well,  now,  I  will  tell  you - 

Q.  Now,  just  give  me  your  best  recollection. — A.  You  asked  me  for 
vhen  I  understood - 

Q.  I  asked  you  to  fix  the  time. — A.  Well,  I  can’t  say  the  exact 

ime. 

Q.  That  is  an  answer,  then.  What  is  your  best  recollection  as  to 
he  time  you  remember  that  he  became  a  candidate? — A.  Well,  I  un- 
lerstood  that  he  and  Mr.  Deneen  were  in  conference  some  time  re¬ 
garding  the  matter. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  that,  sir.  I  am  just  asking  you  for  your 
>est  recollection  of  when  he  became  a  candidate? — A.  I  would  say 
n  avowed  candidate  about  three  days  before  the  vote. 


474  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Three  days  before  the  26th  of  May? — A.  Well,  I  do  not  say 
that  he  was  not  a  candidate  before  that.  He  was  a  candidate  all  of 
the  time  maybe. 

Q.  Well,  an  avowed  candidate? — A.  An  avowed  candidate,  I  would 
say  about  three  days. 

Q.  Then  activities  became  very  intense? — A.  I  did  the  very  best 
I  could;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You — and  you  lent  your  aid  in  those  activities? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  a  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  factionist,  were  you? — A.  Yes, 
sir;  if  you  wish  to  call  it  such. 

Q.  Well,  do— what  do  you  call  it  yourself?— A.  I  consider  that 
Lee  O’Neill  Browne  was  the  minority  leader. 

Q.  You  were  one  of  his  faction  ?— A.  He  was  the  minority  leader. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  of  his  faction,  were  you  not? — A.  I  considered 
Lee  O’Neill  Browne  was  the  minority  leader,  and  he  was  elected  mi¬ 
nority  leader. 

Q.  You  were  one  of  his  faction? — A.  One  of  his  faction? 

Q.  You  were  one  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne’s  faction  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  party? — A.  If  you  want  to  call  it  such. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  what  you  call  it. — A.  I  do  not  call  it  faction.  I 
call  him  the  minority  leader;  absolutely  the  leader,  elected. 

Q.  You  followed  the  minority  leader,  did  you? — A. 


Q.  Mr.  Alschuler,  how  long  have  you  known  George  W.  Myers?— 
A.  I  first  learned  to  know  him  at  the  last  session. 

Q.  Did  you  see  very  much  of  him? — A.  Considerable. 

Q.  Did  you  consider  Mr.  Myers  as  a  man  of  integrity  and  believe- 

ableness  ?—  A.  I  always  thought  so ;  yes.  •  # 

Q.  And  truthfulness?— A.  I  did  until  this  testimony  of  his  came 
in;  that  he  came  down  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne’s  desk. 

Q„  Then  you  changed  your  mind?— A.  I  changed  m  regard  to 
that ;  he  must  be  mistaken,  because  he  did  not  come 


Q.’  There  is  no  chance  of  your  being  mistaken,  is  there? — A.  Abso¬ 
lutely  none.  .  ,  oat 

Q.  You  were  pretty  busy  that  morning,  weren  t  you  ?  A.  1  was 

sitting  right  at  the  desk.  .  ^ 

Q.  I  asked  you  if  you  were  pretty  busy  that  morning?— A.  Be¬ 
fore  10  o’clock;  yes.  ,  ^  .  9  .  T 

Q.  Were  you  talking  to  different  members  of  the  house? — A.  1 

think  I  talked  with  Charley  Luke  that  morning. 

Q  Charley  Luke  is  dead  now.— A.  Charley  Luke  is  dead  now; 


yes,  sir. 


Q.  Didn’t  you  talk  to  Beckemeyer? — A.  I  may  have  talked  tc 

Beckemever. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  take  Beckemeyer  over  to  Browne?— A.  Over  tc 
Browne  ? 

O  Yes _ A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  talk  with  McCullom? — A.  Didn’t  I  talk  with 

McCnllom  ? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  Holstlaw  ?— A.  Positively  not. 

Q,  That  is  all  right;  when  you  answer,  say  No.  —A.  All  right 
Q.  Tell  this  committee  to  whom  you  did  talk  that  morning  belort 
voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer. — A.  I  don’t  remember. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  475 

Q.  You  talked  to  a  number  of  people  ? — A.  I  did  before  10  o’clock. 
After  that  I  sat  there,  and  the  legislature  was  in  session  at  that  time. 

Q.  After  10  o’clock? — A.  After. 

Q.  That  was  the  joint  session? — A.  The  session  of  the  house. 

Q.  The  joint  session  did  not  commence  until  12  o’clock? — A.  A 
little  after  12  o’clock. 

Q.  And  do  you  mean  to  tell  this  committee  from  10  o’clock  until 
the  meeting  of  the  joint  session  you  were  always  at  your  seat. — A. 
Absolutely  at  my  seat. 

Q.  And  never  left  your  seat? — A.  Never  left  my  seat. 

Q.  You  were  watching  Browne,  weren’t  you? — A.  I  could  not 
help  watching  him. 

Q.  Were  you  watching  Browne  is  my  question? — A.  I  was  right 
there  and  could  see  him. 

Q.  You  were  three  seats  to  the  right  of  him  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  If  you  looked  directly  in  front  of  you,  you  would  not  see 
Browne,  would  you  ? — A.  I  could  not  help  but  see  him. 

Q.  You  were  looking  in  front  of  you,  weren’t  you? — A.  I  was 
looking  in  front  of  me,  just  like  I  see  these  three  gentlemen  here 
[indicating]. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne’s  seat  was  not  any  more  than  3  feet  in  front  of 
you,  was  it? — A.  Well,  he  was  in  front  of  me. 

Q.  Three  seats  one  way,  to  the  left,  and  in  front? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  wrant  this  committee  to  understand  that  Myers 
could  not  walk  to  Browne  without  passing  in  front  of  you,  do  you? — 
A.  Tie  had  to  walk  down  that  aisle. 

Q.  That  aisle  was  three  seats  from  you? — A.  I  was  right  there — 
and  at  noon - 

Q.  Do  you  want  this  committee  to  understand  that  Myers  had  to 
walk  in  front  of  you  to  get  to  Browne? — A.  He  had  to  walk  down 
the  aisle  to  get  to  Browne. 

Q.  And  you  were  three  seats  removed  from  the  aisle? — A.  I  was 
three  seats  removed  from  the  aisle. 

Q.  Myers  came  quickly  down  the  aisle — Myers  could  come  quickly 
down  the  aisle  to  Browne,  Browne  being  on  the  end  seat,  without 
passing  you - A.  I  never  said  he  had  to  pass  me - 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  what  you  said. — A.  I  will  tell  you  what 
I  know. 

Q.  Well,  you  are  telling  us  what  you  know,  aren’t  you? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  there  any  money  down  at  Springfield  for  the  election  of 
United  States  Senator? — A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Do  you  say  there  was? — A.  I  will  say  there  was  not. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  tell  Colonel  Copely,  of  Aurora,  that  there  was  money 
down  at  the  legislature  during  the  election  for  United  States  Sen¬ 
ator? — A.  Absolutely,  absolutely  not — if  Mr. — no,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  starting  to  say  “  if  Mr.” - A.  Well, 

there  were  rumors  of  Mr.  Hopkins — and  the  Tribune  will  bear  me  out 
in  that— was  endeavoring  to  get  some  Democrats  to  vote  for  him. 

Q.  With  money? — A.  I  didn’t  say  with  money. 

Q.  Haven’t  you  repeatedly  said  that  there  was  money  in  Spring- 
field,  during  the  election  of  United  States  Senator,  for  the  purpose 
of  influencing  votes? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  For  United  States  Senator? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  any  time? — A.  No,  sir. 


476  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  To  no  man? — A.  To  no  man. 

Q.  And  you  don’t  believe  there  was,  do  you? — A.  I  don’t  believe 

there  was;  no.  , 

Q.  Either  by  Mr.  Hopkins  or  by  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  I  don  t  know 
what  Mr.  Hopkins  did;  I  don’t  know  anything  about  Mr.  Hopkins 
regarding  the  matter,  whether  he  had  money  there  or  not. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  tell  Colonel  Copely  and  Dan  Barnes  you  know 
Dan  Barnes? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  never  spoke  of  Dan  Barnes  in  connection  with  United 
States  Senator? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  what  may  be  called  one  of  Colonel  Copely 's  political 
adherents,  are  you  not?— A.  No,  sir;  I  am  a  Democrat  locally,  and  I 

frequentlv — he  and  I  are  friendly. 

Q.  Politically  ?— A.  Politically.  I  am  a  Democrat ;  he  is  a  Repub¬ 


lican.  . 

Q.  And  still  you  are  friendly?— A.  Still  we  are  friendly. 

Q.  Politically  friendly?— A.  Politically  friendly,  you  say? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Yes;  I  am  friendly  with  him  locally — politically. 

Q.  And  the  Republican  faction  and  the  Democratic  faction  who 
voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  are  politically  friendly,  are  they  not?— A.  I 
don’t  know  whether  you  would  call  it  politically  or  any  other  kind  of 
friendly.  I  suppose  they  were  friendly  when  they  voted  for  him,  of 

course. 

Q.  And  you  want  this  committee  to  understand  that  from  10  o’clock 
in  the  morning  until  after  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer  that  you 
saw  everything  that  Browne  did  ? — A.  When  ? 

Q.  Ten  o’clock  in  the  morning — from  10  o’clock  in  the  morning 
until  after  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  you  saw  everything  Mr. 
Browne  did? — A.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Browne  went  out,  but  that  time,  10 

o’clock -  ,  .  ,  .  _ 

Q.  All  of  the  time  he  was  in  there — barring  the  time  he  went  out, 

I  mean. _ A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  say  that.  I  say  after  12  o’clock. 

After  12  o’clock,  when  the  vote  was  being  taken,  my  eyes  were  on 

Mr.  Browne.  a  A  ,T  . 

Q.  And  immediately  before  that,  were  they  on  him,  too?— A.  Not 

particularly;  no.  „T1 

Q.  Now,  do  you  want  this  committee  to  understand— — A.  VV  hen 
the  senate  came  in  they  took  their  seats,  and  from  that  time  on  I  was 
watching  Mr.  Browne;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  want  to  say  that  during  the  entire  roll  call,  and  imme¬ 
diately  before  the  roll  call— immediately  before - A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  - that  you  watched  Browne?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  did. 

Q.  And  Myers  did  not  go  over  and  talk  to  Browne?— A.  Abso¬ 
lutely  not.  _  _  , 

Q.  And  you  want  this  committee  to  understand  that  the  one-armed 

page— that  is,  the  page  you  refer  to  as  Browne’s  page - A.  Yes. 

Q.  (Continuing.) - never  left  his  seat? — A.  After  12  o’clock. 

q’  Yes.— A.  Only  to  go  up  to  the  speaker,  the  clerk,  to  get  some 

more  roll  calls. 

Q.  Did  he  distribute  them?— A.  He  gave  me  one,  and  he  gave  one 
to  Browne,  and  one  to — I  don’t  know  who  he  gave  the  other  to. 

Q.  Will  you  say  he  gave  the  other  to  anyone  else? — A.  No;  I 
won’t  say  that. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  477 

Q.  Do  you  say,  or  will  you  say,  that  he  did  distribute  roll  calls  to 
members? — A.  I  can  say  that  he  did. 

Q.  How  many  pages  were  on  the  floor  of  the  house? — A.  There 
must  have  been  15  or  20. 

Q.  And  it  is  not  unusual  for  a  man  to  call  a  page  and  send  him 
to  different  parts  of  the  house,  is  it? — A.  No. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne  has  done  it,  and  you  did  it,  and  every  other  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  house  did,  probably? — A.  Mr.  Browne  generally  had  this 
young  gentleman  we  have  spoken  of  almost  entirely. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  this  committee  that  Mr.  Browne  did  not  send 
other  pages  around  to  do  his  work  or  carry  his  messages? — A.  I 
will  say  that  Mr.  McCann  did  most  of  Mr.  Browne’s  work. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  he  did  not  send  other  pages,  too? — A.  No, 
sir;  I  will  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  watch  the  page,  too? — A.  I  did  not  watch  the 
page,  too. 

Q,  You  were  watching  Browne? — A.  I  was  watching  Browne; 
yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Redirect  examination  by  Mr.  Hanecy: 

Q.  Colonel  Copely  that  Mr.  Austrian  talks  about  is  now  the  nomi¬ 
nee  for  Congress  in  the  Republican  party  for  that  district,  isn’t  he? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  hold  any  official  position  in  Springfield  during  that 
session  of  the  legislature? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  not  a  member  of  either  house? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  there  during  that  session? — A.  Well,  part  of  the  time 
he  was. 

Q.  Did  he  hold  any  official  position  in  Springfield  during  that 
session  of  the  legislature? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  Avas  not  a  member  of  either  house? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q,.  What  was  he  doing  down  there?  Was  he  there  during  that 
session? — A.  Well,  part  of  the  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  did  not  ask  anything  about  Colonel  Copley  being 
at  Springfield  or  anything  about  him  being  at  Springfield. 

Q.  Was  Colonel  Copley  for  anyone  of  the  candidates  for  Senator 
on  the  26th  of  May,  1909  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  one? — A.  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  William  Lorimer? — A.  William  Lorimer. 

Q.  Well,  active,  was  he? — A.  Well,  he  Avas  speaking  to  various 
members;  I  suppose  it  was  for  him.  I  don’t  know  how  active. 

Q.  He  was  a  close  friend  of  Governor  Deneen? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  is  noA\T  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  Copley  was  active  after  the  election  of  William  Lorimer 
for  United  States  Senator  on  that  day  or  evening,  Avasn’t  he? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  rejoicing  and  celebrating? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  so  forth? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  Mr.  English  Avas,  wasn’t  he? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  Noav,  of  course,  if  the  committee  wants 
to  knoAV  how  active  he  was  I  do  not  care,  but  it  takes  time. 


478  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


By  Senator  Frazier: 

Q.  You  do  not  undertake  to  state  Mr.  Browne’s  position  or  atti¬ 
tude  during  the  entire  time  of  that  session  before  12  o’clock? — A.  No, 
sir;  absolutely  not. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  whether  he  was  in  his  seat  continuously  after 
the  session  started  at  10  o’clock  until  12? — A.  Well,  now,  if  my  mem¬ 
ory  don’t  fool  me,  he  went  out  at  one  time  and  stayed  away  for  pos¬ 
sibly  a  half  hour,  I  think. 

Q,.  Who  was  your  desk  mate,  or  the  man  who  occupied  the  desk 
nearest  to  you? — A.  Mr.  Beckemeyer  to  the  left,  and  to  the  left  of 
him  was  Mr.  Luke. 

Q.  On  the  left  was  Beckemeyer  ? — A.  Luke  on  the  end  and  McCul- 
lom  next  to  him,  and  Shepherd  on  the  other  end. 

Q.  Were  those  gentlemen  in  their  seats  all  the  time  during  the 
session? — A.  Mr.  Luke  was  not  in  his  seat.  After  12  o’clock  Mr. 
Luke  was  absent  and  I  sent  for  him. 

Q.  Was  it  unusual  for  the  members  of  the  Illinois  legislature  to 
get  up  and  move  about  through  the  hall? — A.  No ;  not  at  all. 

Q.  And  talk  to  each  other? — A.  No;  not  at  all. 

Q.  Was  it  unusual  for  the  minority  leader,  Mr.  Browne,  to  get  up 
from  his  seat  and  move  about  and  speak  to  his  men  during  the  voting 
and  immediately  preceding  the  vote  for  Senator? — A.  During  the 
vote  it  was  an  unusual  thing;  yes. 

Q.  Or  immediately  preceding? — A.  Or  immediately  preceding. 

Q.  Was  it  unusual  for  him  to  do  so? — A.  It  was  not  unusual,  but 
that  morning  he  did  not  do  it. 

Q.  How  many  votes  were  taken  for  United  States  Senator  during 
that  session  of  the  legislature,  do  you  recall? — A.  No;  I  do  not 
recall. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  Mr.  Browne’s  attitude  and  position  in  his 
seat  at  any  other  time  during  the  session  when  the  men  wTere  being 
voted  for  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  Yes;  I  have  noticed  him 
sitting  there ;  yes. 

Q.  Will  you  just  tell  us  each  one  of  those  sessions  and  each  one  of 
those  votes,  how  it  was? — A.  Oh,  I  can’t  say  at  each  one. 

Q.  You  can  at  this  particular  instance? — A.  I  can  that  particular 
one;  I  was  particularly  interested. 

Q.  After  the  balloting  began  you  noticed  Mr.  Browne? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  from  the  time  the  balloting  began  until  it  was  concluded 
Mr.  Browne  did  not  leave  his  seat? — A.  He  did  not  leave  his  seat 
only  to  get  up  and.  deliver  his  address. 

Q.  Did  anyone  approach  Mr.  Browne  during  that  time  at  all  ? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anyone  speak  to  Mr.  Browne? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Browne  send  any  page  any  where  at  that  time? — A. 
Somebody  sent  a  page  and  the  page  went  up — I  think,  if  I  remember 
right,  he  whispered  to  the  page  before  the  senate  came  in,  and  the 
page  went  up  and  got  some  roll  calls,  one  for  Mr. — well,  I  know 
Mr.  Browne  had  one,  I  know  I  had  one,  and  the  page  stayed  right 
there  so  he  couldn’t  have  distributed  any  more  roll  calls. 

Q.  And  the  roll  call  began  very  soon  after  the  senate  came  in? — 

A.  Well,  the  first  roll  call  was  to  find  out  whether  there  was  a 
quorum  present. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  479 

Q.  You  didn’t  notice  what  was  going  on  during  that  time  as  to 
Mr.  Browne’s  attitude  to  other  members?— A.  Yes;  I  was  right 
there;  I  sat  right  there  and  noticed  Mr.  Browne’s  actions:  yes,  sir. 

.  Q-  Did  anybody  talk  to  Mr.  Browne  during  that  time?— A.  No, 

sir. 

Q.  No  one  at  all? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  During  the  time  that  the  roll  was  called  to  ascertain  whether 
there  was  a  quorum  present? — A.  No;  there  was  nc  one. 

Q.  Nobody  spoke  to  Mr.  Browne? — A.  No. 

Q.  And  nobody,  you  say,  spoke  to  Air.  Browne?— A.  Nobody;  if 
I  recollect,  he  was  writing  at  one  time ;  I  know  he  was  at  one  time. 

Q.  You  were  watching  Mr.  Browne  all  the  time?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  when  the  roll  call  began  for  the  vote  for  United5  States 
Senator,  you  continued  to  watch  him?— A.  I  certainly  did. 

Q.  You  do  not  undertake  to  say  what  occurred  'before  the  roll 
oegan  to  be  called  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  undertake  to 
say  when  the  senate  came  in,  from  that  time  on  I  would  know  what 
iiave  occurred  at  Mr.  Browne’s  desk,  because  I  was  watching  him. 

Q.  And  you,  during  all  of  that  time - A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Say  that  nobody  spoke  to  Mr.  Browne  and  Mr.  Browne  did  not 
speak  to  anybody  ? — A.  Absolutely  not,  because  I  wras  right  there  and 
ooking  right  at  him. 

Q.  And  from  the  time  that  the  senate  came  in  until  the  roll  call 
vas  completed  and  the  Senator  elected? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  lrou  undertake  to  remember  that  and  state  that  as  a  fact? — A. 

[  do  state  it  as  a  fact;  absolutely,  yes. 

.  Q*  Why  were  you  noticing  Air.  Browne  so  particularly  at  that 
ime  ? — A.  Well,  I  will  tell  you  why  I  was.  I  did  not  have  my  eyes 
?lued  on  him ;  I  was  looking  his  way ;  and  I  knew  Air.  Browne,  being 
;he  minority  leader,  I  knew  he  was  the  minority  leader,  and  I  felt 
hat  if  anybody  did  come  to  Mr.  Browne  that  possibly  something 
vould  have  transpired  by  which  they  would  change  their  reason  for 
lot  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  and  for  that  reason  I  was  watching  Air. 
Irowne. 

Q.  Well,  but  before  the  roll  call  began  for  Senator  why  were  you 
vatching  Air.  Browne  so  closely  at  that  time?— A.  I  wasn’t  watch- 
ng — I  was  sitting  right  here  like  this — looking  right  at  him. 

Q.  Was  it  not  very  usual  for  senators  and  members  to  get  up  and 
)ass  your  seat  during  all  that  excitement  of  voting  for  United  States 
Senator  and  preceding  that?— A.  Preceding  that?  I  didn’t  watch 
dr.  Browne  preceding  the  time  that  the  senate  came  in.  From  the 
ime  that  the  senate  came  in  I  was  watching  him. 

Q.  All  the  members  of  the  legislature,  both  senators  and  members 
•f  the  house,  sat  in  their  seats  during  the  entire  time  of  the  roll  call 
or  a  quorum  and  roll  call  for  Senator?— A.  I  can’t  tell  that;  I  am 
lot  sure,  because  I  was  sitting  there  looking  at  Mr.  Browne.  I  wasn’t 
ooking  at  the  other  members.  I  was  looking  just  as  I  am  looking 
t  you  now. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  they  were  walking  around  and  speaking  to  each 
ther  and  in  the  usual  way  in  those  things?— A.  No;  not  on  roll  call. 
Q.  They  were  sitting  perfectly  still? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  During  all  that  time  Air.  Browne  did  not  speak  to  anybody  and 
obody  spoke  to  Mr.  Browne? — A.  No,  sir. 


480  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  The  page  or  anybody  else?— A.  The  page  was  right  around 
there.  I  think  now— I  won’t  swear  to  it — I  think  Mr.  Browne  sent 
the  page  up  after  two  roll  calls. 

Q.  Did  the  gentleman  who  sat  on  your  left - A.  Mr.  Becke- 

meyer. 

Q.  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  did  he  leave  his  seat  at  all  after  the  senate 
came  in  ? — A.  I  can’t  swear  as  to  that, 

Q.  He  was  immediately  on  your  left? — A.  On  my  left ;  yes. 

Q.  You  can  not  swear  whether  he  left  his  seat  or  not? — A.  No;  I 

can  not.  . 

Q.  He  was  a  good  deal  closer  to  you  than  Mr.  Browne?— A.  Yes; 
but  I  could  see  Mr.  BroAvne  a  good  deal  better  than  I  could  him ;  I 
didn’t  give  him  any  attention ;  I  gave  Mr.  Browne  attention. 

Q.  Did  the  gentleman  sitting  on  your  right  leave  his  seat  and  speak 
to  anybody  ? — A.  I  can't  say  as  to  that. 

Q,  'Did*  anybody  get  up  and  speak  to  the  speaker  during  that 
time? — A.  I  wasn’t  watching  that  at  all. 

Q.  And  you  didn’t  see  that  at  all?— A.  No;  no,  sir;  no,  sir.  I  was 
looking  at  Mr.  Browne. 

Senator  Frazier.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  This  was  in  the  meeting  of  the  joint  assembly?— 
A.  Joint  assembly;  yes. 

By  Senator  Johnston: 

Q.  Why  were  you  watching  Mr.  Browne  more  closely  than  anyone 
0130  ? — A.  Well,  I  was  watching  the  minority  leader,  and  he  was  the 
man  to  whom  we  had  to  look,  understand,  and  knowing  that  an  eliort 
would  be  made  to  elect  Mr.  Lorimer  that  morning,  why  I  naturally 
kept  my  eyes  on  Mr.  Browne. 

Q.  Did  you  expect  that  Democrats  changing  their  vote  from  the 
way  they  said  they  were  going  to  vote,  would  go  first  to  Mr. 
Browne?— A.  I  certainly  did,  yes;  that  was  my  judgment. 

Q.  That  is  the  reason'you  were  watching?— A.  That  is  the  reason. 

Q.  To  see  if  there  would  be  any  change? — A.  If  there  was  any 
change  why  Mr.  Browne  would  be  the  man  that  would  know  it  and  1 
would  immediately  ask  Mr.  Browne  if  there  would  be  such  a  change. 

Q.  Was  there  any  one  sitting  to  Mr.  Browne’s  right,  in  the  seat  im¬ 
mediately  to  his  right? — A.  To  his  right,  yes;  Mr.  Gorman  is  tlu 
member  to  his  right- 

Q..  Was  he  in  his  chair?— A.  He  was  in  his  chair;  yes. 

Q.  No  one  was  on  his  left? — A.  No ;  that  was  the  aisle. 

Q.  Who  was  in  front  of  him?— A.  Mr.  Tippit,  I  think. 

Q.  And  who  behind  him? — A.  Behind  him  was  Mr.  Luke,  supposes 

to  be ;  but  he  wasn’t  there  until  I  sent  for  him. 

Q  Could  Mr.  Browne  talk  to  the  man  in  front  of  him  by  leaning 
over  on  his  desk?— A.  He  could,  but  he  wouldn’t;  they  were  bittei 

enemies ;  they  didn’t  talk  at  all. 

Judge  Haxecy.  He  was  the  leader  of  the  other  faction. 

Senator  Johnston  Yes;  I  understand. 

Q.  Who  sat  on  his  right?— A.  On  Mr.  Tippit’s  right? 

Q.  No;  on  Mr.  Browne’s  right?— A.  Air.  Gorman,  of  Peoria. 

Q.  They  were  near  and  could  converse  with  each  other?  A.  Yes 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  481 

Q.  You  recall  that  they  did  not  converse? — A.  I  don’t.  No;  they 
lid  not  converse;  no,  sir;  they  didn’t  converse.  This  was  from  12 
’clock. 

Q.  Yes? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  was  that  roll  call? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  how  long 
t  took;  they  didn’t  start — I  would  say  about  ten  minutes  to  1  that  the 
enate  got  through  with  the  roll  call.  Several  senators  delivered  ad¬ 
dresses,  two  or  three  of  them,  and  then  the  roll  call  was  had. 

Q.  Well,  did  they  deliver  addresses  during  the  roll  call  or  pre- 
ious? — A.  No;  during  roll  call;  during  the  roll  call. 

Q.  Their  names  were  called? — A.  And  they  responded;  there  was 
Senator  Isley  and  Senator  Daily  I  remember  now ;  there  might  have 
een  others. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Browne  deliver  an  address? — A.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  This  was  in  the  joint  assembly? 

The  Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Senator  Frazier: 

t/ 

Q.  How  long  after  the  senate  came  in  and  the  joint  assembly  as- 
unbled  until  the  roll  call  began  for  the  election  of  United  States 
ienator? — A.  Well,  I  would  say  possibly  about  forty  minutes. 

Q.  About  forty  minutes? — A.  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Before  the  roll  call  actually  began? — A.  Well,  no.  Now,  let 
le  see — yes;  somewhere  around  tliere  after  those  addresses  were  de- 
vered ;  somewhere  around  there  I  should  think  so. 

Senator  Frazier.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Alschuler,  had  you  and  Mr.  Browne  conversed 
dth  reference  to  who  was  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Yes. 
Q.  Did  you  have  the  names  of  them? — A.  I  didn’t  have  the  names; 

Q.  Did  you  have  the  number? — A.  Not  exactly  the  number,  but  I 
link  they  had  enough. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne  said  he  had  enough? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  he  tell  you  that? — A.  I  think  he  told  me  that  the 
ight  before. 

Q.  The  night  before? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  The  night  of  the  25th  ? — A.  The  night  of  the  25th ;  yes. 

Q.  About  what  time? — A.  Oh,  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Well,  where? — A.  Well,  I  think  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel;  that  is 
here  I  was  stopping. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  the  time? — A.  I  can  not. 

Q.  And  he  told  you  they  had  enough? — A.  He  told  me  he  thought 
ley  had  enough  to  elect  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  Did  he  go  over  the  names  with  you  ? — A.  No ;  he  didn’t  go  over 

le  names. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  any  of  the  members  with  him  ? — A.  No ;  I  don’t 

link  I  did. 

Q.  No  members  at  all? — A.  No  members  at  all;  well,  hold  on. 
ust  wait  a  minute.  I  think  possibly  I  did  discuss  Mr.  Shephard,  if 
am  not  mistaken. 

Q.  Any  others? — A.  No;  I  don’t  think  so. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  of  any  Democrats  that  you  had  convinced  or 
ot  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  or  who  had  promised  you  to  vote  for 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 31 


482  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  No;  I  don’t  think  I  did;  no;  I  don't  think  I 

did.  .  ... 

Q.  And  notwithstanding  your  activities  among  the  Democratic 

members  of  the  house  you  did  not  go  over  the  list  of  names  with  Mr. 
Browne? — A.  You  mean  that  he  had  a  list?  He  had  no  list  there. 

Q.  Oh,  he  didn’t? — A.  He  didn’t  have  a  list;  no 

Q.  Did  he  have  a  book? — A.  No,  sir.. 

Q.  Or  any  memorandum? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  just  knew  them  by  heart? — A.  I  don’t  know  how  lie  knew 
them ;  he  told  me  he  thought  they  had  enough. 

Q.  But  he  didn’t  know  what  Democrats  he  had  or  what  Democrats 
he  didn’t  have? — A.  Well,  you  must  remember  that  I  had  talked  to 
a  lot  of  different  men  myself  the  previous  day. 

Q,  But  you  can  not  tell  us  the  names  of  any  Democrats  you  talked 
to  ?— A.  No ;  I  can’t.  I  talked  to  Mr.  Shephard,  I  think,  and  I  talked 
to  Beckemeyer  the  previous  day,  and  I  think  I  spoke  to  McCullom. 
Well.  I  will  tell  you,  I  had  an  interview  in  the  Aurora  paper,  if  you 
will  allow  me — I  had  an  interview  in  the  Aurora  paper  with  regard 
to  some  statement  Mr.  Shephard  had  made,  and  I  said  if  there  is  any¬ 
body  I  haven’t  talked  with  I  said  “  I  wish  to  apologize  for  it.” 

Q.  That  was  very  cute,  was  it  not? — A.  It  wasn’t  cute,  but  it  was 

true. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  to  tell  the  committee  who  the  Democrats  were 
you  talked  to. — A.  I  can’t  say. 

Q,  And  got  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  I  don’t  know  whether  I 
got  anyone  to  vote  for  him. 

Q.  You  just  took  it  for  granted  when  Mr.  Browne  said  he  had 
enough  ? — A.  He  had  enough. 

Q.  Now,  you  refer  to  Democrats? — A.  Yes. 

Q,  If  a  Democrat  had  gone  up  to  Mr.  Browne  during  the  course  of 
that  joint  assembly,  you  would  not  have  known  whether  he  was  one 
of  the  Democrats  that  promised  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  or  not  ?— A. 
It  would  make  no  difference  to  me.  I  would  want  to  know  what  he 

was  doing  there.  . 

Q.  You  were  not  sufficiently  interested  the  night  beiore  to  ask  him 
what  Democrats  he  had  gained  ? — A.  I  knew  the  Democrats,  prac¬ 
tically,  who  had  agreed  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  because  he  told  me 
there  was  quite  a  number  of  them  they  thought  they  would  vote  foi 
Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  A  number  of  them? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  many  ?— A.  I  can’t  say ;  20  or  25.  .  . 

Q.  He  got  53  Democratic  votes? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why,  if  you  were  interested  enough  to  watch  Mr.  Browne  to  see 
whether  any  Democrat  went  to  him  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring  whai 
he  wanted  to  see  him  for,  you  were  not  sufficiently  interested  to  asl 
him  the  night  before?— A.  No;  Mr.  Browne  told  me  he  had  enough 
and  I  had  confidence  to  know  he  did  have  enough. 

Q.  If  you  had  enough  confidence  in  Mr.  Browne  to  feel  he  did  hav( 
enough,  didn’t  you  have  enough  confidence  in  Mr.  Browne  the  nexi 
day  when  you  were  watching  him  to  know  he  had  still  enough  ? — A.  1 
had  enough  confidence  in  him  all  the  time. 

Q.  Stiil  you  watched  him? — A.  If  any  member  came  up  there,  J 
wanted  to  know  what  he  was  doing.  I  watched  him  as  I  am  watching 
Senator  Frazier  now ;  I  was  sitting  like  this  and  I  couldn’t  help  bui 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  483 

^atch  him,  and  if  anybody  would  have  gone  up  there  I  would  have 
bsolutely  known  it. 

Q.  When  the  senate  came  in,  some  of  the  house  vacated  their 
eats? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  many  senators  were  there  ? — A.  How  many  were  there  ? 

Q.  I  don’t  know. — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  myself,  89 — let  me  see 
ow  many  there  was.  I  forget  the  number  of  senators.  How  many 
istricts  are  there? — Fifty-two,  I  think  52  senators,  and — let  me  see — 
don’t  know  how  many  there  was. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  how  many  members  of  the  Illinois  senate  there 
as? — A.  I  think  204  members  in  all,  jointly. 

Q.  Two  hundred  and  four  members  of  the  house  and  senate? — 
-  Two  hundred  and  four. 

Q.  How  many  members  of  the  house  were  there? — A.  There  was 
ne  hundred  and— let  me  see— and  fifty -three,  I  think. 

Q-  You  think  153  members  of  the  house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  i  lien  if  there  were  51 - A.  Fifty-one  in  the  senate. 

Q.  If  there  were  51  and  50  present,  those  50  senators  when  they 
ime  into  the  house,  50  house  members  vacated  their  seats,  didn’t 
ley  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  moved  to  other  parts  of  the  house? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  there  was  considerable  confusion? — A.  At  the  time  thev 
ime  in ;  yes. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  desire  to  ask  a  question.  You  say  it  was 
lout  an  hour  from  the  time  the  joint  session  began  voting  until 
le  vote  finally  was  taken? — A.  I  should  say  thirty-five  to  forty 
mutes. 

Q.  How  many  speeches  were  made? — A.  A  number  of  speeches 
ere  made.  The  only  ones  that  I  can  remember  particularly  I  re¬ 
ember  Senator  Isley’s  and  Senator  Daily’s. 

Q.  From  what  part  of  the  house  were  those  speeches  delivered, 
•om  where  you  were  sitting?— A.  I  think  Mr.  Isley  was  right  beside 
e,  but  I  am  not  positive,  and  Mr.  Daily  was  in  front  of  me,  I  think  • 
am  not  dead  sure. 

Q.  Any  of  them  behind  you  or  off  to  one  side? — A.  I  think  Mr. 
ley  was  behind  me,  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Q.  Did  you  pay  any  attention  to  Mr.  Daily’s  speech?— A.  I  heard 
s  speech. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  make  it  ? — A.  As  he  got  up ;  yes. 

Q.  And  you  watched  him?— A.  No;  I  didn’t  watch  him  at  all; 
sat  there  listening. 

Q.  Did  you  face  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  still  kept  your  eyes  on  Mr.  Browne? — A.  I  kept  my  eyes 
front  of  me ;  yes. 

Q.  While  every  other  man  was  speaking? — A.  No — what  is  that? 
Q.  And  you  didn’t  look  at  any  of  the  speakers? — A.  I  looked  at 
iem.  I  kept  my  eyes  like  I  am  keeping  them  now;  like  this. 

Q.  They  were  all  in  front  of  you?— A.  All  'in  front  of  me;  not 
hind  me. 

Q.  No  speakers  were  behind  you?— A.  Well,  Mr.  Islev,  I  think 
as  behind  me.  ’ 

Q.  Or  off  to  one  side? — A.  He  was  behind  me,  or  off  to  one  side, 
am  not  sure  which. 


484  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Was  Mr.  Browne  between  you  and  the  speaker? — A.  Not  be 
tween;  he  was  just  off  a  little  ways. 

Q.  You  sat  behind  Mr.  Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  During  all  of  these  speeches  that  were  made  in  placing  in  nomi 
nation  and  otherwise,  you  kept  your  eyes  on  Mr.  Browne? — A.  Wei 
the  only  speeches  that  were  made  I  think  were  Mr.  Isley  and  M; 
Daily  and  one  or  two  others ;  very  short  ones,  if  I  am  not  mistaken ; 
am  not  sure. 

Senator  Gamble.  Did  Mr.  Browne  speak  during  the  joint  sessio 
when  his  name  was  called? — A.  Yes;  he  spoke  before  his  name  wa 
called ;  he  asked  unanimous  consent  that  he  be  allowed  to  address  th 
joint  session,  and  it  was  given. 

(Judge  Hanecy  here  rose  to  examine  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment;  I  have  not  finished.  If  you  d( 
sire  to  examine,  Judge,  proceed;  I  just  wanted  to  ask  one  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  English  made  a  speech? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  Mr.  English?— A.  He  was  back  of  me. 

Q.  Back  of  you? — A.  Yes;  back  of  me. 

Q.  Mr.  English  was  the  man  that  Mr.  Browne  got  up  and  cha 
lenged  to  go  outside,  wasn’t  he? — A.  Well,  that  Mr.  English  had  mac 
some  statement - 

Q.  There  was  great  feeling  displayed  on  the  floor  of  the  houe 
between  Mr.  Browne  and  Mr.  English? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  turn  around  when  Mr.  English  was  making  tl 
speech  ? — A.  I  am  not  sure  whether  I  did  or  not — no ;  I  didn’t. 

Q.  You  kept  your  eyes  in  front  of  you,  then? — A.  When  the  ei 
citement  started  between  Mr.  Browne  and  English,  I  think  I  did  tur 
around  and  look  at  English. 

Q.  English  had  made  a  speech  covering  some  minutes? — A.  N( 
this  was  while  English  was  making  the  speech. 

Q.  While  Mr.  English  was  making  a  speech  which  covered  eight  ( 
ten  minutes  ? — A.  I  should  think  all  of  that. 

Q.  And  you  kept  your  eyes  still  in  front  of  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Senator  Frazier: 

Q.  Was  that  a  bitter  speech  against  Mr.  Browne;  was  there  an; 
thing  personal  in  it? — A.  Yes;  there  was  some  bitterness.  M 
Browne  had  made  a  speech  and  Mr.  English  spoke  afterwards. 

Q.  Had  Mr.  Browne  made  some  reflections  upon  Mr.  English  < 
referred  to  him  in  any  way? — A.  Not  on  English,  no;  but  Mr.  En« 
lish  in  his  speech  made  some  remark,  I  don't  know  what  it  is  now, 
forget  now  what  it  was,  which  aggravated  Mr.  Browne. 

Q,  There  was  some  confusion  and  difficulty  arose? — A.  Yes;  b 
tween  them. 

Q.  And  did  you  take  the  liberty  of  looking  at  Mr.  English  at  tlr 
time  or  not? — A.  I  turned  and  looked  at  Mr.  English  and  turn* 
back. 

Q.  You  did  actually  look  at  Mr.  English? — A.  I  did  turn  aroui 
and  look  at  Mr.  English  and  turned  back ;  yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Alscliuler,  Mr.  Browne  had  said  in  his  speec 
hadn’t  he,  that  “  You  can’t  cash  dreams,”  and  when  Mr.  English  g 
up  Mr.  English  said,  “  But  you  can  cash  votes,”  didn’t  he ;  ai 
then  did  not  Mr.  Browne  say  that  if  he  thought  that  the  remar. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  485 


vere  directed  toward  him  that  he  would  ask  him  to  step  out,  and 
ne  of  the  two  would  not  return  ?  Is  not  that  substantially  what 
)ok  place  between  them  ? — A.  Something  like  that ;  yes.  I  don’t 
now  the  exact  words ;  I  don’t  remember  them. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all  ? 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Mr.  Alschuler,  Mr.  Tippit  was  the  leader  of  the  minority  f ae¬ 
on  of  the  Democratic  side? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Blair? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  one  of  the  Tippit  faction? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Espey? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  he  of  that  faction? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Mr.  Galligan? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Mr.  Hruby,  Hruby  [spelling  name]  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Mr.  Kannally? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  McCullom? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  McConnell? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  McLaughlin? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  O’Neal?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Poulton? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Riley?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Whelan? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  Frank  Wilson? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  They  were  all  members  of  the  Tippit  faction? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  they  or  not - A.  They  were  called  which  faction  ? 

Q.  Yes ;  they  were  the  ones.  They  were  beaten  in  the  vote  for  the 
linority  leader? — A.  Minority  leader;  and  then  sort  of  bolted. 

Q.  Yes.  Did  all  of  those  men,  or  any  of  them,  vote  for  William 
/orimer  for  United  States  Senator  on  that  day? — A.  They  all  voted 
)r  him ;  yes. 

Q.  All  of  them? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Including  Mr.  Tippit,  the  leader? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Their  so-called  leader? — A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  need  this  witness  further? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  think  so,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Then  the  witness  may  be  excused  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  can  call  the  page,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  his  name? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Paul  McCann. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  McCann. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  counsel  a  question  ?  I 
o  not  ask  you  to  indicate  it  now,  but  whenever  it  looks  as  though 
i  might  be  twelve  or  twenty-four  hours  of  closing  his  case  that  he 
indly  indicate  it  so  we  can  get  such  witnesses  as  we  require  on  rebut- 
d  without  delaying  the  proceedings. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  can  not  tell  you  when  I  will  close  mine  until  you 
ill  me  when  you  close  yours.  I  shall  ask  that  I  shall  not  be  corn¬ 
el  led  to  go  on  and  put  all  my  witnesses  on  until  they  shall  have  closed 

leir  side. 


486  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  haven’t  any  objection  to  that.  We  are  waiting 
for  Mr.  Browne,  Mr.  Broderick,  and  Mr.  Wilson,  and  then  the  three 
witnesses  whose  names  were  disclosed  yesterday.  They  were  sent  for 
at  the  request  of  the  committee,  and  they  have  been  subpoenaed. 

Senator  Burrows.  They  have  been  subpoenaed  and  sent  for.  We 
have  a  telegram - 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  only  to  save  the  delay  that  may  be  attendant 
upon  a  sudden  closing  of  the  case. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  try  and  fill  in  time  and  expedite  as  much 
as  possible. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Counsel  knows  as  much  about  the  three  witnesses 
yesterday  as  I  do. 

Senator  Burroavs.  We  have  a  telegram  that  Mrs.  Luke  will  be 
here  in  the  morning  at  8  o’clock,  to-morrow  morning;  and  the  wit¬ 
nesses  you  subpoenaed  yesterday  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understand  he  has  got  a  response  from  some  ol 
them. 

Paul  McCann,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  being  first  duly  sworn 
by  Senator  Burrows,  testified  as  follows: 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name? — A.  Paul  McCann. 

Q.  Were  you  a  page  in  the  house  of  the  last  legislature? — A.  1 
was. 

Q.  Did  you  do  the  work  for  any  particular  member  of  the  house 
or  were  you  with  any  particular  member  generally? — A.  I  was. 

Q.  What  member? — A.  Mr.  Lee  O’Neill  Browne. 

Q.  He  was  the  minority  leader? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  joint  session  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909?— 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  the  senate  came  into  the  house  anc 
took  their  seats  at  12  o’clock,  or  about  that  time  ? — A.  I  do. 

Q.  Where  were  you  at  that  time  ? — A.  At  Mr.  Browne’s  desk. 

Q,  Won’t  you  talk  louder,  so  we  can  all  hear? — A.  Mr.  Browne’s 
desk. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  at  Mr.  Browne’s  desk  from  the  tim< 
that  the  senate  came  into  the  house? — A.  Until  the  senate  went  out 

Q.  All  the  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  Mr.  Browne’s  desk  at  any  time  while  the  join 
session  was  on,  from  the  time  the  senate  came  in  until  the  join 
session  arose? — A.  At  no  time. 

Q.  Where  was  Mr.  Browne’s  seat ;  that  is,  was  it  an  aisle  seat  oi 
center  seat? — A.  It  was  the  third  seat,  first  aisle  from  the  main  aisl< 
going  up  to  the  left ;  on  the  left  side,  the  third  seat. 

Q.  The  third  seat  from  the  front? — A.  Main  aisle,  and  it  is  th< 
first  aisle  from  main  aisle,  third  seat,  as  you  go  up  the  aisle  fron 
the  left. 

Q.  Going  up  from  the  speaker’s? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  he  had  one  of  the  aisle  seats,  did  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  George  W.  Meyers? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  A  member  of  that  house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  the  house  during  that  joint  session  aftei 
12  o’clock  of  that  day? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  487 

Q.  Did  he  at  any  time  go  to  Mr.  Lee  O’Neill  Browne’s  desk  or  seat 
md  talk  with  Mr.  Lee  O'Neill  Browne? — A.  At  no  time. 

Q.  Was  there  any  seat— I  will  withdraw  that — was  the  aisle  at 
lie  left  of  Mr.  Browne  as  he  sat  in  his  seat;  was  the  aisle  at  the 
eft  or  right  of  Mr.  Browne;  was  it  on  the  left  of  him;  was  that  the 

lisle  or  was  the  aisle  on  his  right  as  he  sat  facing - A.  It  was  on 

lis  right. 

Q.  It  was  at  his  right? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  seat  in  the  aisle  adjoining,  immediately 
djoining  Mr.  Browne’s  seat? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  During  that  joint  session? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anybody  bring  a  chair  or  a  stool  or  a  camp  chair  or  camp 
tool  or  anything  else  to  sit  on,  anything  else  and  put  it  in  the  aisle 
o  sit  on? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Meyers,  a  member  of  the  house,  go  over  to  Mr. 
Browne’s  desk  and  sit  down  in  any  of  the  seats  adjoining  him,  in 
he  front  or  the  rear  or  at  the  left  of  him,  during  that  joint  session 
fter  the  senate  came  in  and  the  roll  call  proceeded? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  If  Mr.  George  W.  Me}^ers  had  talked  with  Lee  O’Neill  Browne 
t  his  desk  there  on  that  day  after  the  senate  came  into  the  house 
nd  the  roll  call  started,  the  joint  session,  at  any  time  before  the  joint 
ession  arose,  would  you  have  seen  it  and  known  it  ? — A.  I  would. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Browne  leave  his  seat  during  the  joint  session  after 
2  o’clock  when  the  senate  entered  the  house  and  the  roll  call  was 
aade  until  the  joint  session  arose? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  during  all  that  time? — A.  Keeping  a 
oil  call. 

Q.  What  is  that? — A.  Keeping  a  roll  call. 

Q.  Where? — A.  At  Mr.  Browne’s  desk. 

Q.  Did  you  stand  in  the  aisle  at  his  desk? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  All  the  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Why  not  let  him  testify,  I  submit - 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  How  old  are  you,  boy? — A.  Sixteen  years  old. 

Q.  And  when  this  occurrence  took  place  you  were  14  or  15  ? — A.  I 
?as  about  15. 

Q.  When  is  your  birthday? — A.  January. 

Q.  You  were  16  this  January? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  last  January. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  mean  this  last  January.  And  you  were  15  years 
nd  some  three  or  four  months  when  this  occurrence  took  place? — 
L  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  pages  are  there  in  the  house? — A.  I  should 
hink - 

Q.  Keep  your  voice  up  and  talk  so  Senator  Heyburn  can  hear 
ou. — A.  I  think  about  12. 

Q.  Twelve? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  those  pages  at  the  bidding  of  all  members  of  the  house 
like? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  Senator  Alschuler  asked  you  to  go  and  do  an  errand  for  him 
ou  would  go? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


488  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  I  said  u  Senator,”  I  meant  Representative  Alschuler.  And  if 
Mr.  Beckemeyer  should  ask  you  to  go  and  do  an  errand  for  him  you 
would  go? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is,  no  one  has  any  special  privilege  with  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  McCann,  this  occurrence  you  speak  of  took  place  on 
the  26th  of  May,  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  for  the  first  time  was  your  attention  drawn  to  it  there¬ 
after? — A.  I  don’t  understand  you. 

Q.  When,  for  the  first  time  atfer  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  was  your 
attention  directed  to  the  occurrences  of  that  day? — A.  At  the  second 
trial  of  Lee  O’Neil  Browne. 

Q.  And  that  was  in  June  or  July,  1910;  is  that  correct? — A.  No; 

it  was  in - 

Q.  Take  your  hand  down. — A.  It  was  in — well,  it  has  been  about 
three  weeks  ago,  I  guess,  or  four  weeks. 

Q.  Well,  in  August,  1910? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  between  May,  1909,  and  August,  if  that  is  the  correct 
date,  1910,  your  mind  did  not  recur  to  it  at  all? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  There  was  nothing  unusual  about  it,  was  there? — A.  No. 

Q.  When  the  joint  assembly  came  in  where  were  you? — A.  At  Mr. 
Browne’s  desk. 

Q.  What  seats  did  the  joint  assembly  occupy? — A.  All  around 
the  front  aisles  and  down  the  main  aisle. 

Q.  That  is,  the  senators  not  having  seats  in  the  house,  there  were 
temporary  and  provisional  seats  made  for  them? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Down  the  main  aisles  in  the  front  of  the  house,  and  they 
occupied  some  of  the  representatives’  seats,  didn’t  they? — A.  Well, 
not  so  much  as  the  main  aisle  and  around  the  speaker’s  desk. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  seat  did  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  sit  in? — A.  A  regu¬ 
lar  chair,  swinging  chair. 

Q.  A  swinging  chair  with  sides  to  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  seat  next  to  him  occupied  at  all  times?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  seat  next  to  the  man  next  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  was  that 
seat  occupied  at  all  times? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  seat  back  of  him  occupied  at  all  times? — A.  Yes,  sir.. 

Q.  The  seat  in  front  of  him  occupied  at  all  times? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  from  the  time  that  the  joint  session  assembled;  is  that  cor¬ 
rect? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  know  that  of  your  own  knowledge? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  positive  about  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  those  four  seats  were  occupied  at  all  times? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anyone  passing  up  and  down  the  aisles  at  that 
time? — A.  Not  only  pages. 

Q.  Only  pages;  no  senator  or  member  of  the  house  got  up? — A. 
No,  sir;  only  while  they  made  their  speeches. 

Q.  Where  wrere  you  when  Mr.  Browne  made  his  speech? — A.  At 

his  desk.  ..." 

Q.  Mr.  Browne  stepped  out  in  the  aisle,  didn’t  he? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  didn’t? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  just  stood  right  in  his  seat,  which  was  the  third  seat  from  the 
front,  and  looked  directly  at  the  speaker,  didn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  didn’t  turn  around  to  the  back  of  the  house  at  all,  did 
he? — A.  Well,  he  turned  around  as  he  made  his  speech. 

Q.  Didn’t  he  step  out  in  the  aisle? — A.  No,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  489 
Q.  You  are  sure  of  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  there  when  Mr.  Browne  shook  his  fist  at  some  one? — 
A..  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  the  man  ? — A.  I  can  not  tell  you  that. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  who  that  man  was? — A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Some  man  had  charged  Mr.  Browne  with  something  that  morn- 
ng? — A.  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  But  you  remember  Mr.  Browne  got  very  angry  about  it? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  who  made  speeches  that  day  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nothing  at  all  about  it,  do  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  that  Mr.  Browne  made  a  speech  that  day?— 
A  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  other  pages  came  to  Mr.  Browne  that 
lay  ?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  this  committee  that  no  other  pages  did  come  to 
Hr.  Browne  that  day? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  you  were  the  only  one  ? — A.  I  was  the  only  one. 

Q.  Did  you  stay  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  never  leave  Mr.  Browne’s  desk  from  the  time  the  senate 
;ame  in  until  after  the  election  and  go  out  of  the  senate ;  is  that  cor- 
•ect? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  correct,  is  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  where  were  you  for  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  before  the 
•oil  call  began? — A.  Well,  I  was  at  Mr.  Browne’s  desk,  and  about 
ive  minutes  before  the  senate  came  in  I  went  down  and  got  a  couple 
)f  roll  calls;  I  kept  one  myself,  gave  Mr.  Browne  one,  and  I  gave 
Hr.  Gorman  or  Mr.  Alschuler  the  other,  1  have  forgotten  which  one. 

Q.  You  have  an  independent  recollection  of  that? — A.  Yes. 

^  Q.  Who  told  you  to  give  Mr.  Gorman  or  Mr.  Alschuler  one  ? — A. 
Nobody. 

Q.  How  did  you  happen  to  give  them  one? — A.  I  asked  for  two 
nd  he  gave  me  three  by  mistake. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Alschuler  call  you  to  give  him  one? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  just  went  over  and  gave  him  one? — A.  I  don’t  remember 
/ho  I  gave  it  to. 

Q.  Mr.  Alschuler  was  sitting  where,  with  reference  to  Mr. 
Irowne  ? — A.  Bight  back  of  Mr.  Browne. 

Q.  Sitting  immediately  back  of  him? — A.  No. 

Q.  Three  seats  away,  was  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  know  everything  that  transpired  there  except  you 
on’t  know  the  speeches  or  who  made  them;  is  that  correct? — A.  Yes, 
ir. 

Q.  And  you  never  left  that  place? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  the  other  pages? — A.  Why,  around  at  their  dif- 
srent  men’s  station. 

Q.  How  long  did  it  take  from  the  time  the  joint  assembly  con- 
ened  until  after  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected  ? — A.  Why,  it  was  a  little 
Her  that  day  than  usual ;  it  was  about,  I  guess,  1  o’clock  when  it  was 
11  through. 

Q.  It  was  all  over  in  an  hour,  was  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  came  in  at  12? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  all  over  in  an  hour? — A.  Just  about  an  hour. 


490  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  no  one  passed  by  that  aisle  or  down  that  aisle  and  no  one 
left  their  seats  and  no  one  spoke  to  Mr.  Browne,  and  Mr.  Browne 
spoke  to  no  one;  is  that  correct? — A.  Yes;  only  the  pages  walked  up 
and  down  the  aisle. 

Q.  Just  the  pages? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  pages  walked  up  and  down  by  you,  too,  did  they? — A.  I 
don't  remember  of  any  walking  by  me. 

Q.  Will  you  say  there  were  no  pages  walked  up  and  down? — A. 
Yes. 

Q.  There  were  no  pages  passing  up  your  aisle;  is  that  correct? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  the  only  page  in  that  aisle? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  sure  of  that  ? — A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Johnston.  Did  anyone  have  a  conversation  with  Mr. 
Browne  during  the  roll  call  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  any  message  come  to  him,  any  messenger? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Frazier.  Were  you  present  at  the  voting  for  United 
States  Senator  on  the  day  preceding  or  at  the  time  preceding  the 
time  at  which  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  on  that  day? — A.  At  Mr.  Browne’s  desk,  as 
usual. 

Q.  Did  anyone  speak  to  Mr.  Browne  during  the  joint  session  that 
day? — A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  You  don't  remember.  Did  Mr.  Browne  leave  his  seat  during 
the  joint  session  that  day? — A.  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  session  preceding  that — two  sessions 
back — of  the  time  at  which  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anyone  speak  to  Mr.  Browne  during  that  session? — A.  I 
don't  remember  that. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Browme  leave  his  seat  during  that  session? — A.  I 
don’t  remember. 

Q.  This  joint  session  was  in  session  something  like  an  hour,  you 
say? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  after  the  senate  members  came  into  the  house 
until  the  balloting  began  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  Yell, 
about  fifteen  minutes. 

Q.  About  fifteen  minutes? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  being  done  during  that  time? — A.  Well,  they  called 
to  see  whether  there  was  a  quorum  present. 

Q.  There  was  a  roll  call? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  a  quorum? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  is  usual,  is  it  not,  during  the  calling  of  the  roll  of  the  house 
or  of  the  joint  assembly  for  senators  and  members  to  move  about  out 
of  their  seats  and  talk  to  each  other,  and  so  forth  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  that  particular  morning  were  they  following  that  usual 
custom  of  moving  about  ? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  During  the  roll  call  to  ascertain  whether  a  quorum  was  present 
or  not  ? — A.  Not  during  the  time  the  senate  came  in ;  until  the  senate 
came  up  there  was  no  one  moving,  except  pages,  as  I  remember  it. 

Q.  On  that  particular  morning  there  was  not  a  member  of  the 
house  or  senate  that  moved  during  the  time  or  from  the  time  they 
came  in  and  during  the  entire  roll  call  to  ascertain  whether  there  was 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  491 

a  quorum  or  not? — A.  Not  that  I  remember  of;  not  that  I  know 
anything  about. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  know  anything  about  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  anything  about  it.  Well,  they  might  have 
noved  around,  if  you  don’t  remember  about  it,  mightn’t  they? — A. 
Weil,  the}7  might ;  my  back  was  turned  to  some  of  them. 

Q.  And  do  you  state — can  you  remember  whether  the  members 
vere  all  in  their  seats  or  whether  any  of  them  were  moving  about 
luring  the  time  of  the  roll  call  to  ascertain  whether  there  was  a  quo- 
aim  present  ? — A.  They  were  in  their  seats  mostly  all  the  time. 

Q.  Every  man  was  in  his  seat  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Both  the  senate  and  members  of  the  house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  During  the  entire  roll  call  not  a  man  left  his  seat? — A.  Not  that 
[  know  of. 

Q.  Do  you  remember? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  whether  they  did  or  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  They  might  have  left  their  seats,  if  you  do  not  remember? — A. 
ires. 

Q.  You  do  not  undertake  to  state  that  they  all  sat  in  their  seats 
luring  the  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  during  that  time  they  may  have  moved  about  up  and 
lown  that  aisle  or  spoke  to  each  other,  mightn’t  they? — A.  Tl*ey 
night. 

Q.  They  might  for  all  you  know  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  don't  undertake  to  remember,  young  man,  do  you,  every 
nan  that  spoke  to  Mr.  Browne  or  anybody  else  during  that  day? — 
Well,  I  remember  more  particularly  that  day  for  it  was  more 
aisier  around  that  day  than  usual. 

Q.  More  busier.  More  excitement,  wasn’t  there? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  More  stirring  about  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Men  were  more  excited  and  there  was  a  spirit  of  excitement  in 
he  assembly  that  day? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  undertake  to  say  therefore  that  every  man  was  sit¬ 
ing  in  his  seat  during  that  entire  hour  ? — A.  Well,  most  all  of  them 
?ere  sitting  in  their  seats,  if  I  remember  correctly,  answering  to  their 
tames  on  roll  call  of  the  senate. 

Q.  I  ^ges  are  pretty  busy  during  the  sessions  of  the  legislature,  are 
hey  not,  during  joint  sessions? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Many  men  were  calling  pages  and  sending  them  here  and 
here? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  subject  to  anybody’s  call? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Any  member  of  the  house  or  senate  during  the  joint  session? — ■ 
L  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  answer  one  whenever  you  were  wanted? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  that  morning  were  you  called  at  all  by  anybody? — A.  Well, 

done  more  work  for  Mr.  Browne  than  anybody. 

Q.  I  know,  but  were  you  called  for  anybody  on  the  occasion  of 
he  joint  session? — A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  You  don’t  recall  at  all?  You  might  have? — A.  Well.  I  might 
ut  don’t  think  I  had. 

Q.  You  might  but  don’t  think  you  had.  Do  you  know  whether 
ae  gentleman  who  sat  back  of  Mr.  Browne  was  in  his  seat  during 
11  of  that  time? — A.  Well,  he  had  the  habit  of  roaming  around. 

Q.  He  had  a  habit  of  rambling  around  ? 


492  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  Eoaming  around. 

Q.  Eoaming  around? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  he? — A.  Mr.  Luke. 

Q.  Mr.  Who  ? — A.  Mr.  Luke. 

Q.  The  man  that  sat  on  the  left,  I  believe— was  the  aisle  on  the 
right  or  left? 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  aisle  was  on  the  right. 

Senator  Frazier.  The  man  that  sat  on  the  left  of  Mr.  Browne,  was 

he  in  his  seat  all  the  time?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  he?— A.  Mr.  Allison,  if  I  remember. 

Q.  Mr.  Who  ?— A.  Allison. 

Q.  Is  he  living  yet? — A.  I  think  he  is. 

Q.  You  think  he  is.  Do  you  undertake  to  say  that  he  did  not  leave 
his  seat  during  that  entire  hour  of  the  joint  session?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Were  you  watching  him?— A.  Well,  I  was  standing  right  by 
the  side  of  Mr.  Browne’s" desk,  and  I  had  to  face  him  to  take  the  roll 

CaQ.  Of  course.  How  do  you  remember  about  the  man  not  leaving 
his  seat  a  year  and  a  half  ago  on  an  occasion  of  that  sort  where 
there  was  more  or  less  excitement  ?  How  do  you  remember  or  undei- 
take  to  remember  that,  young  man? — A.  W ell,  it  was  a  more  excite¬ 
ment  day  than  was  usual. 

Q.  Do  you  undertake  to  remember  on  any  other  day  whether  men 

left  their  seats  or  not?— A.  No,  sir.  '  . 

Q.  And  whether  any  man  spoke  to  any  man  or  not?— A.  JNo,  sir. 
Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  the  only  day  that  the  United  States  Sen¬ 
ator  was  elected,  was  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  keep  the  roll  call  all  that  day  ?  I  mean  all  that 
session.  I  mean  that  session  of  that  day  from  the  time  the  joint  ses¬ 
sion  commenced? — A.  Yes,  sir.  .  ,  _  ^ 

Q.  That  is,  I  mean  the  vote  for  United  States  Senator.  Was 
there  more  than  one  ballot  that  day  for  United  States  Senator  when 
William  Lorimer  was  elected? — A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  think  there  was. 
Q.  He  was  elected  on  the  first  ballot?— A.  First  ballot. 

Q.  Where  did  you — I  think  you  told  Senator  Frazier  that  you 

were  keeping  the  roll  call? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  Where  did  you  have  the  blank  form  that  you  were  keeping  the 

roll  call  on?— A.  On  Mr.  Browne’s  desk. 

Q.  Were  you  standing? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  mark  on  the  roll  call  every  name ;  I  mean  each  name  as 
it  was  called? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  desire  to  ask  a  question.  Were  any  speeches 
made  after  the  roll  call  commenced?  Did  they  interrupt  the  roll  call 
to  make  speeches? — A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  Were  any  made  before  the  roll  call  commenced  ?— A.  1  believe 

there  was;  a  couple. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  were  attached  to  Lee  O  Neil  Browne  all  ot 

that  session,  were  you?  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment.  I  object  to  counsel  testifying. 
The  boy  has  stated  what  his  relations  were  and  what  his  duties  were, 
and  now  counsel  endeavors  to  put  other  words  into  this  witness  s 
words.  I  object  as  leading. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  493 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  did  not  understand  what  he  said.  What  is  the 
fact  as  to  whether  you  were  there  all  the  time? — A.  I  was  at  Mr. 
Browne’s  desk  most  all  the  time. 

Q.  During  that  entire  roll  call? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  any  other  roll  call  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Boy,  you  remember  the  first  roll  call  and  vote  for 
United  States  Senator  in  the  joint  assembly? — A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t. 

Q.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  excitement  that  day,  too,  wasn’t 
;here? — A.  Well,  it  has  been  so  far  back  I  can’t  remember. 

Q.  That  was  in  January,  1909,  was  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  first  day  they  voted  for  United  States 
Senator  in  joint  assembly? — A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  on  the  subject  at  all? — A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  didn't  keep  the  roll  call  any  other  day  but 
that,  did  you? — A.  Only  at  important  matters. 

Q.  Only  what?  I  mean  the  senatorial  roll  call  on  United  States 
Senate. — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  day  you  kept  a  roll  call,  is  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  witness. 

Witness.  May  I  be  excused  for  good? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Just  a  minute.  He  wants  to  know  if  he  is  excused 
for  good. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  you  through  with  this  witness  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  be  excused. 

Witness.  Excused  for  good? 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  be  excused  from  further  attendance 
Dn  the  committee.  Can  you  call  another  witness  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  all  through  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  except  three 
Dr  four,  and  one  or  two  are  not  here.  We  have  sent  for  them,  and 
Dne,  I  know,  won’t  be  here  until  to-morrow  morning. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  know  whether  you  have  any  other  wit- 
aesses  here  now  that  you  can  put  on  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  another  one  here,  but  I  prefer  not  to  put 
him  on  at  the  present  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  you  can  put  on  now  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  no  witnesses  here.  The  only  ones  are  the 
three  you  have  sent  for,  and  Mr.  Broderick  and  Mr.  Browne. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  three  witnesses  that  were  sent  for  last 
aight  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  and  Browne  and  Broderick. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  have  a  dispatch  that  Mrs.  Luke  will  be  here 
in  the  morning. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  and  I  will  put  her  on  if  she  knows  anything. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  then  adjourn  until  10  o’clock 
to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Can  I  ask  a  question,  Judge?  Do  I  understand 
you,  Judge,  that  you  only  have  two  or  three  witnesses? 

Judge  IIanecy.  No;  T  said  I  had  three  or  four  that  I  know  of  now, 
but  I  do  not  care  to  put  them  on  now. 


494  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all  right;  I  just  wanted  to  know  when  I 
could  get  what  witnesses  I  want  for  rebuttal.  If  you  can  give  me  an 
idea  so  I  won’t  delay  you  or  the  committee  when  you  get  through, 

that  is  all.  _ 

Senator  Burrows.  Counsel  can  get  together  and  talk  that  over. 
Judge  IIanecy.  You  better  have  your  witnesses  ready.  I  have 
been  holding  mine  here  for  two  or  three  days  so  as  to  fill  in  heie 
when  you  were  not  ready  to  go  on. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  been  ready  at  all  times. 

(Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning 
at  10  o'clock.) 

WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER  5,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

At  10  o’clock  a.  m.  the  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment, 
whereupon  the  following  proceedings  were  had: 

The  following  members  of  the  subcommittee  being  present :  Hon. 
J.  C.  Burrows,  chairman,  Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble.  Hon.  TV  .  B.  Hey- 
burn,  Hon.  James  H.  Paynter,  Hon.  Joseph  F.  Johnston,  and  Hon. 
James  B.  Frazier. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  who  would  you  like  to  call . 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mrs.  Luke. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mrs.  Luke  will  be  called. 

Mr.  Austrian.  To  save  the  time  of  the  committee,  I  understand 
Mr.  Tvrrell  is  here,  and  if  you  desire  to  put  him  on  now,  we  can  do  so. 
or  would  you  prefer  to  wait  for  Mrs.  Luke? 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Tyrrell,  did  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  just  which  ever  you  prefer.  TV  ell,  perhaps 
we  had  better  wait  for  Mrs.  Luke,  if  she  is  coming. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  understand  she  will  be  here  in  two  or  three 

minutes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh.  yes;  all  right. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  this  witness  Tyrrell  here? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  he  is,  Senator. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  he  a  short  witness? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  he  is,  Senator ;  but  I  have  not  talked  witl 

him.  •  . 

Senator  Burrows.  You  say  the  name  is  Tyrrell? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Tyrrell. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  here  is  Mrs.  Luke,  now. 

Mrs.  Charles  Luke,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  firs 
duly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Mr 
Austrian,  and  testified  as  follows: 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mrs.  Luke,  will  you  kindly  give  the  committe* 
your  full  name?  Will  you  please  speak  toward  Senator  Heyburn 
the  last  Senator  there? — A.  Mrs.  Charles  S.  Luke.  _  . 

Senator  Heyburn.  Now,  he  is  trying  to  give  the  impression  tha 
I  can  not  hear  well.  If  the  witness  will  speak  toward  the  chairman 

that  will  be  sufficient;  I  have  very  acute  hearing. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mrs.  Luke,  your  husband  was  Charles  S.  LuK€ 

was  he  not? — A.  les,  sir.  ..  0  .  v 

Q.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Illinois  general  assembly?— A.  les 

sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  495 

Q.  And  was  such  member  in  1909  ? — A.  He  was. 

Q.  When  did  your  husband  die  ? — A.  The  21st  of  February. 

Q.  1910?— A/1910. 

Q.  Wras  he  in  attendance  at  the  legislature,  if  you  know,  at  the 
time  of  the  election  of  the  United  States  Senator? — A.  He  was. 

Q.  Wlien  did  he  return — I  beg  your  pardon — where  do  you  live  ? — 

A.  Now? 

Q.  No;  at  the  time  of  the  last  session  of  the  legislature. — A.  Nash¬ 
ville,  Ill. 

Q.  Did  he  return  to  Nashville,  Ill.,  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
legislature,  if  you  know? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  legislature  adjourned  about  the  4th  or  5th  of  June,  1909; 
?an  you  tell  this  committee  about  when  he  did  return;  how  long 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature? — A.  Well,  I  suppose  right 
away. 

Q.  You  believed  it  was  some  time  in  the  month  of  June,  1909? — 

4.  Yes. 

Q.  Thereafter  do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  received  a  telegram 
from  Kobert  E.  Wilson  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it? — A.  No;  he  read  it  to  me. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  object  to  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  ask  that  the 
answer  be  stricken  out.  and  I  shall  object  to  any  communications 
aetween  this  lady  and  her  husband  during  coverture. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  suggest  that  we  pass  all  of  that  until 
tve  have  the  testimony  in,  to  save  time. 

^  Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  perfectly  competent  under  the  law  of  this 
State;  there  is  no  such  thing  as  coverture  applying  to  this  transac¬ 
tion  under  the  law  of  this  State. 

Senator  Burrows.  She  said  she  heard  the  telegram  read;  that  he 

’ead  it  to  her. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  that  is  all  she  has  said  yet. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  merely  hearsay,  I  think. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  think,  under  the  ruling  of  the  committee 
dready  made,  we  will  have  to  exclude  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  After  the  receipt  of  this  telegram,  did  your  hus- 
>and  leave  your  home  in  Nashville? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  went  ? — A.  He  went  to  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Upon  his  return  from  St.  Louis,  did  he  show  you  anything?— 
Y  No. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  he  brought  with  him  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  Did  he  have  any  large  amount  of  money? — A.  No. 

Q.  Did  he  exhibit  to  you  any  amount  of  money  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  see  $950  in  his  possession? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  W7hen? — A.  Before  that  time. 

Q.  Before  he  went  to  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  had  he  been  immediately  before? — A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Had  he  been  away  from  home? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  he  been  to  Chicago  ?— A.  No. 

Q.  Had  he  been  to  St.  Louis? — A.  No. 

Q.  Where  had  he  been? — A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Was  this  $950  in  large  bills  or  small  bills? — A.  In  small  bills. 

Q.  What  denomination  ?— A.  Why,  $20,  I  believe,  if  1  remember 

ight 


496  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Did  you  and  your  husband  discuss  anything  with  reference  to 
where  he  had  received  the  $950? — A.  No. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  I  object  to. 

Mr.  O’Donnell.  She  said  she  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  did  not  ask  for  the  conversation.  I  asked  whether 
they  discussed  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  She  answered  they  did  not  discuss  it.  .  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all  you  know  about  the  $950,  is  it .  A. 

That  is  all  I  know.  n  A  T  ,, 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  committee  the  time?— A.  No;  I  dont  re¬ 
member.  .  • 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  anything  about  the  time?— A.  No. 

Q.  But  it  was  after  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature,  was  it?— 

A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all,  unless  the  committee  well,  that  is  all 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Hanecy: 

Q.  Mrs.  Luke,  you  have  been  sick  for  some  time,  haven’t  you?— A 
Yes. 

Q.  You  have  had  a  number  of  persons  following  you  up  at  differ 
ent  places,  trying  to  get  you  to  tell  some  story,  haven't  you  .—A.  les 
Q.  About  your  husband  or  about  what  he  did,  or  what  he  wa 
supposed  to  have  done  in  the  legislature,  and  afterwards .  A.  Yes 
Senator  Burrows.  What  is  your  answer  to  that?— A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  say,  yes.— A.  Yes.  #  ■ 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  names  of  any  of  those  parties.  A.  JNo, 

don’t  remember.  _  _  .  .  , , 

Q.  Will  you  look  around  at  the  good  looking  gentlemen  on  tn 

other  side,  at  your  right  there,  and  see  if  it  was  any  of  those  partie 
that  talked  to  you?— A.  Yes;  I  recognize  him  [indicating]. 

Q.  That  is  the  gentleman  who  is  blushing,  Mr.  John  Calla] 

O’Laughlin,  is  it?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  say  he  hasn  t  got  a  blush  m  him. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  I  am  surprised,  as  he  has  been  sitting  s 
close  to  his  immediate  general  neighbors  there- 

_  -\  ▼  i  i  _ _ _  X  L  4-1 


Senator  Burrows.  Now,  let  us  go  on  with  this  case,  Judge. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mrs.  Luke,  when  did  Mr.  O’Laughlin  talk  wit 
you  about  it?— A.  Just  a  few  minutes  ago. 

Q.  Here  in  the  building?— A.  Yes.  ,  ,  v 

Q.  He  knew  you  were  going  to  be  called  as  a  witness .  iv.  x 


sir. 


Q.  He  knew  you  were  going  to  be  called  as  a  witness  before  th 
honorable  committee  ? — A.  Y  es,  sir. 


O.  bid  he  ask  you  to  tell  him  about  what  you  knew,  before  yc 


Cj 


came  in  here? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  He  did?— A.  Yes.  .  .  __ 

Q.  Did  he  go  to  your  room  to  do  that. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  not  at  all  well  when  you  came  here?— A.  iNo. 

Q.  And  you  had  to  go  to  a  room  and  lie  down?— A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  John  Callan  O’Laughlin  go  there  under  those  cone 

tions  and  ask  vou  about  those  things?— A.  Yes,  sn. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  him  at  any  other  time,  or  he  with  jou.- 

A.  I  never  saw  him  at  any  other  time. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  whether  he  represented  anybody  or  not.  . 


Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  497 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? — A.  Counsel  for  the  Chicago  Tribune. 

Q.  He  said  he  was  counsel  for  the - A.  Yes ;  if  I  remember. 

Q.  What  is  that? — A.  Yes;  if  I  remember  correctly,  that  is  what 
le  told  me. 

Q.  He  said  he  was  counsel  for  the  Chicago  Tribune? — A.  Yes.  sir. 
Q.  Do  you  know  the -names  of  any  of  the  other  parties  who  talked 
vith  you  about  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  There  were  other  parties  though  who  came  to  see  you? — A. 
fes,  sir. 

Q.  At  your  home  and  at  other  places? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Whom  did  they  claim  to  represent? 

Mr..  Austrian.  What  difference  does  that  make? 

The  Witness.  I  don’t  know. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  don’t  know? — A.  No. 

Senator  Burrows.  She  says  she  does  not  know. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  don’t  know  the  names  of  any  of  those 
>arties? — A.  No. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  that  is  all. 

Redirect  examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  I  believe  you  said  February  21,  1910,  was  when  your  husband 
lied;  is  that  correct? — A.  February  21. 

Q.  Of  this  year? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  either  of  you  gentlemen  desire  her  to  stay? 
Judge  Hanecy.  No. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

Senator  Burrows.  She  is  ill — you  can  be  excused,  Mrs.  Luke. 
Mrs.  Luke.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  be  excused  from  further  attendance, 
Irs.  Luke,  and  we  are  much  obliged  to  you  for  coming. 

Mrs.  Luke.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Paynter.  Mrs.  Luke  may  go  home.  I  did  not  know 
hether  she  understood  that  or  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Henry  Terrill,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly 
worn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Mr.  Austrian, 
nd  testified  as  follows : 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name,  please? — A.  Henry  Terrill. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside? — A.  Colchester,  McDonald  County,  Ill. 
Q.  What  is  your  business? — A.  Merchant. 

Q.  Merchant? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  Colchester? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly? — A. 
"es,  sir. 

Q.  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Republican. 

Q.  In  the  house  or  the  senate? — A.  The  house. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  to  the  United 
tates  Senate? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Prior  to  that  time,  did  you  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  I  did  not. 
Q.  You  were  a  Hopkins  man,  were  you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 32 


498  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Prior  to  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  did  anyone  offer  you  any 
money  or  any  inducement  oi  any  kind  for  the  pui  pose  of  influencing 

your  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir.  0 

Q.  Did  anyone  have  any  conversation  with  you  along  that  line  5 — A. 

Yes  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  you  will  face  this  way,  and  speak  a  little 
louder,  we  will  be  much  obliged  to  you. — A.  All  right. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  was  your  answer,  please?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  vou  tell  the  committee  who,  when,  and  where,  and  all  oi 
the  circumstances  surrounding  it? — A.  Well,  Mr.  Griffin,  a  membei 
of  the  house  also;  I  think  he  comes  from  Cook  County,  but  I  don't 
remember  what  district.  He  never  made  me  any  offer  of  cash.  He 
asked  me  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  I  asked  him  what  there  would 
be  in  it,  and  he  said,  “A  thousand  dollars,  anyway.”  That  was  all. 

Q.  When  was  this  conversation  ?— A.  This  was  either  the  night 
before  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  or  two  nights  before.  I  am  not 
certain.  I  think  it  was  the  night  previous. 

Q.  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected  on  the  26th,  and  it  was  there  on  eithei 

the  24th  or  the  25th? — A.  Yes,  sir.  _ 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Griffin  was  a  Democrat  or  a  Kepub 

lican  member?—  A.  A  Democratic  member. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  faction  he  was  in  on  the  Democratic  side  oj 

the  house  ? — A.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  tell - 

Senator  Burrows.  I  want  to  ask  him  a  question. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  what  there  would  be  in  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
q!  What  did  you  mean  by  that? — A.  I  meant  in  money  is  what 

meant.  I  wanted  to  find  out -  .  .  _  .  ,  , 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  you  meant  to  intimate  to  him  that  you  coui( 

be  purchased? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  ask  it  for?— A.  To  find  out  what  he  was  getting 
Q.  What  he  was  getting? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  All  right ;  go  ahead. 


Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  He  did  not  tell  you  he  was  getting  anything,  did  he?— A 
No  sir. 

Q.  Nobody  else  told  you  he  was  getting  anything,  did. they? — A 
No.  sir. 

Q,  There  was  a  lot  of  joking  around  there,  wasn’t  there,  as  to  ever 

candidate?— A.  A  great  deal  of  talk ;  yes,  sir  , 

Q.  As  to  the  candidacy  of  those  voting  for  Mr.  Foss,  or  Air.  Wet 
ster,  Mr.  Mason,  and  Mr.  Hopkins— that  talk  covered  all  of  the  dii 
ferent  candidates  previous  to  the  election  of  TV  illiam  Lorimer  a 
United  States  Senator,  didn’t  it?— A.  Well,  there  was  not  so  much  o 

that  talk  only  on  the  Lorimer  side. 

Q.  You  heard  it  all  through  the  session,  didn’t  you?— A.  Tes,  si 
Q,  All  through  the  session,  from  the  beginning  down  to  the  tinj 

of  the  closing,  didn’t  you?— (No  answer.) 

Q.  Won’t  you  say  “  Yes  ”  and  not  nod  your  head  that  way  s  x 


Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  believe  it  was  true, 
believed  it;  yes,  sir. 


did  you  ? — A.  Well,  I  sort  c 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  499 

Q.  You  had  heard  it  so  many  times  with  reference  to  so  many  dif¬ 
ferent  candidates  that  you  thought  you  would  test  it,  did  you? — A. 
[  did  not  hear  it  so  much  about  the  other  candidates. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  hear  it  all  through  the  session? — A.  Oh,  there 
\vas  some  little  talk ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  thought  you  would  test  some  of  those  rumors,  did  you? — 
A  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  is  why  you  invited  somebody  to  offer  you  some- 
:hing? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Well,  you  asked  Mr.  Griffin,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  asked  him  what 
;here  would  be  in  it. 

Q.  Yes;  that  is  what  I  say;  you  invited  him,  didn’t  you,  to  offer 
7011  something? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  thought  it  was  not  an  invitation  by  you  to  him  to  offer  you 
something — what  is  that? — A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t  think  it  was  an  invi- 
ation  for  him  to  offer  me  anything. 

Q.  Did  you  think  it  would  be  any  inducement  for  him  to  offer  you 
mything  ? — A.  I  did  not  know  that  it  would. 

Q.  You  suggested  an  offer,  didn’t  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  suggested  some  offer  being  made  to  you,  didn’t  you? — A. 
STo,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  asked  what  there  was  in  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  he  did  not  tell  you  he  got  anything,  did  he  ? — A.  I  asked 
lim  the  question  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  what  they  were  get- 
ing  out  of  it. 

Q.  Yes— A.  My  vote  was  not  for  sale  at  any  time.  If  it  had 
)een,  I  think  I  could  have  gotten  the  proffer  from  Mr.  Lorimer  him¬ 
self. 

J udge  Hanecy.  I  move  that  be  stricken  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  ought  to  go  out. 

J  udge  Hanecy.  It  is  evidently  done  maliciously. 

Q.  You  were  never  a  friend  of  William  Lorimer’s,  were  you? — A. 

.  never  was  an  enemy  of  his. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  that.  I  did  not  ask  you  whether  you  were  a 
ompanion,  but  I  asked  you  whether  you  were  a  friend  of  his. — A.  I 
vas  not  a  friend  of  his  for  the  United  States  Senate  in  the  last  house. 

Q.  You  were  an  adherent  of  former  Senator  Hopkins,  weren’t 
ou  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  there  actively  and  energetically  for  him,  weren’t 
•ou? — A.  I  voted  the  first  eighteen  times  for  Senator  Hopkins. 
'Tom  that  I  went  to  Lawrence  Y.  Sherman,  and  staid  there  until  the 
ast  two  ballots,  and  then  went  back  to  Senator  Hopkins. 

Q.  Well,  you  were  all  of  the  time  an  adherent  of  former  Senator 
lopkins,  even  when  you  were  voting  for  Lawrence  Sherman? — A. 
fes,  sir;  I  was. 

Q.  You  changed  your  voting  to  Sherman  to  try  and  draw  some- 
>ody  else  out  from  there,  from  the  parties  they  were  voting  for,  so 
hat  you  might  induce  them  to  go  to  Hopkins  when  you  went;  is 
hat  not  a  fact? — A.  Yes;  that  is  partially  true;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  there  never  was  a  time  when  you  were  not  a  strong,  active, 
nergetic,  and  strenuous  adherent  of  Senator  Hopkins? — A.  That  is 
rue. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  further  questions? 


500  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  there  be  any  need  of  this  witness  further? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No. 

Senator  Paynter.  Just  a  question. 

Q„  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Griffin  that  you  asked  the  question  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  finding  out  whether  he  was  getting  any  money?— A.  I  under¬ 
stood  the  question  was - 

Q.  I  understand  you  asked  the  question,  but  did  you  tell  him  the 
purpose  you  had  in  asking  the  question ? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Senator  Paynter.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  this  witness  is  not  needed  by  counsel  on 
either  side  he  may  be  discharged. 

The  Witness.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

The  Witness.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  state  now,  so  that  there  need  be  no 
further  delay  on  either  side,  that  with  the  exception  of  Browne, 
Broderick,  and  Wilson,  who  are  now  under  advisement — their  testi¬ 
mony  being  under  advisement— we  have  nothing  further  to  offer  as 

a  part  of  our  main  case. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  have  Mr.  Shaw  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  didn’t  know  he  was  here.  Is  Mr.  Shaw  here . 

Senator  Gamble.  I  thought  there  were  three  witnesses  subpoenaed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  thought  they  had  not  come  yet. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Is  Mr.  Shaw  here? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don't  want  the  case  held  open  on  that  account. 
I  understand  that  Mr.  Terrill  only  had  come  at  this  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Shaw  wired  that  he  would  be  here  to-day. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  did  not  know  that  he  had  done  so. 

Senator  Heyburn.  He  is  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  have  him  called? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  I  will  be  glad  to  have  him  called. 

Homer  E.  Shaw,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly 
sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  m  chief  by  -Mr*  Austrian 
and  testified  as  follows : 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  is  your  full  name,  please?— A.  Homer  E 
Shaw. 

Q.  Where  do  vou  reside  ? — A.  Bement,  Ill. 

Q.  What  is  vour  business,  Mr.  Shaw?— A.  I  am  a  banker. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  speak  loud  and  address  the  chair 
man.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  Illinois  house  in  the  forty-sixth 

general  assembly? — A.  I  was. 

Q.  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Democrat. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  on  the  26th  ol 
May? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  At  any  time  were  you  approached  with  reference  to  voting  foi 
Mr.  Lorimer— at  any  time?— A.  I  believe  I  was  at  one  time  askec 
if  I  could  do  so. 

Q.  Anything  further? — A.  No,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  501 

Q.  Who  approached  you?— A.  I  think  Mr.  Browne  asked  me  the 
question. 

Q.  Lee  O'Neill  Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  there  any  inducements  offered  to  you? — A.  None  what¬ 
ever. 

Q.  Money  or  any  other  consideration? — A.  No  other  consideration 
whatever. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Any  questions  ? 

Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Did  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  Mr.  Shaw,  or  anybody  else  offer  you 
anything,  or  indicate  to  you  directly  or  indirectly  that  you  could  get 
anything  by  voting  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Sen¬ 
ator? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  any  time? — A.  At  no  time. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  anybody  that  anybody  had  offered  you  or  had 
indicated  to  you  that  you  could  get  some  money  or  other  thing  of 
value  if  you  did  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Sen¬ 
ator? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  A.  White? — A.  I  do. 

Q.  A  member  of  the  same  legislature  ?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  talk  with  him  before  the  election  of  William 
Lorimer  for  United.States  Senator?— A.  I  did. 

Q.  T\  hen  ?  A.  TV  ell,  I  would  not  attempt  to  fix  the  date,  but  my 
recollection  is  about  a  week  before. 

Q.  What  was  the  conversation? — A.  The  conversation  was — the 
matter  came  up— something  came  up,  as  I  remember  it— now,  it  is 
cj ii i t e  a  little  while  ago,  and  I  would  not  like  to  state  positively  just 
the  nature  of  it,  but  I  think  that  White  made  this  remark  to  me: 
That  if  he  got  a  chance  to  vote  for  Bill  Lorjmer  for  Senator  he  was 
^oing  to  do  it. 

Q.  What  was  the  rest  of  it?— A.  Shall  I  go  ahead  and  state  it  all? 

Q.  Yes;  tell  what  he  said  to  you  and  what  you  said  to  him. _ A.  I 

•>aid  to  him,  Charlie,  I  think  you  will  make  a  great  mistake  if  you 
lo  anything  of  the  sort.*’  I  said,  “  You  know  you  are  a  young  man: 
you  are  new  in  your  district,  and  undoubtedly  stand  high  with  the 
oeople  down  there  or  they  would  not  have  put  you  here,  and  I  believe 
it  will  be  your  political  death  if  you  do  anything  of  that  sort,”  and  I 
old  him  what  I  thought  would  be  the  condition  down  there  in  O’Fal- 
on,  where  he  came  from,  if  he  did  do  this.  I  told  him  I  did  not  be- 
ieve  his  best  political  friends  would  speak  to  him  when  he  went 
lome,  and  I  remember  that  he  made  the  remark  that  he  “  didn’t  care 
i  damn,”  but  that  he  “  intended  to  do  it  if  he  got  the  chance.”  This, 
o  my  best  recollection,  was  about  a  week  before. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  to  him  about  the  locality  from  which  he 

:ame  being  in  southern  Illinois,  and  a  strong  Democratic  district? _ 

V.  I  did.  I  mentioned  the  fact  to  him  that  his  people  were  largely 
oreign  ;  they  were  French,  German,  and  Irish,  very  largely. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  to  Mr.  White  after  that? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  After  the  election  of  a  United  States  Senator  on  the  26th  of 
Jay,  1909 — the  house  adjourned  about  the  4th  or  5th  of  June,  I  be- 
leve,  didn’t  it? — A.  Somewhere  along  there.  I  don’t  remember  the 
xact  date. 


502  INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Was  there  an  extra  session  after  that  ? — A.  There  was. 

Q.  Called  by  the  governor  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  extra  session  was  divided  into  two  or  three  parts  b} 
recesses,  I  believe,  was  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  talk  with  Mr.  White  at  the  main  part  of  thi 
extra  session,  or  any  of  the  sessions  after  that? — A.  I  think  that  i 
was  not  there  the  first  day  of  the  extra  session.  As  I  remember  th< 
matter,  it  was  about  the  second  or  third  day  of  the  session. 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell  this  honorable  committee  whei 
that  extra  session  commenced,  if  you  know  ? — A.  I  can  not  say  ex 
actly.  The  records  will  show. 

Q.  About  when,  if  you  know?— A.  I  could  not  give  you  the  date 
Along  in  the  winter. 

Q.  In  December  sometime,  was  it? — A.  Yes,  it  was. 

Q.  Go  on. — A.  The  second  or  third  day  of  the  session,  I  went  down 
and  as  I  remember  the  matter,  I  arrived  there  about  11  or  12  o’clock 
and  went  immediately  to  the  State  House.  When  I  went  into  th< 
house,  there  were  a  few  other  members  there,  and  in  the  row  of  seat 
in  which  Mr.  White  sat — he  sat  on  my  left,  next  seat  to  the  left  o 
me.  He  was  the  only  member  in  that  row.  Instead  of  bothering 
him  to  go  bv  him,  I  slid  into  the  north  end  of  the  row,  and  I  sat  be 
side  him.  1  said,  as  I  have  done  a  half  dozen  times  before,  “  Hellc 
Charlie,”  and  he  sort  of  grunted,  and  did  not  say  anything  more.  . 
had  some  mail  there,  and  I  sat  down  and  read  what  mail  I  had,  and 
think  I  wrote  a  couple  of  letters,  and  I  finally  turned  to  him  am 
asked  him,  I  says,  “  Charlie,  what  is  the  matter  with  you?  ”  “  Oh,' 
he  says,  “  I  am  sore  at  myself,  sore  at  the  world,  and  feel  bad  in  gen 
eral.”  That  is  about  all.  I  made  the  further  statement  that  th 
things  I  had  told  him  would  happen  to  him,  had  about  all  happened 
and  a  good  many  more. 

Q.  What  were  the  things  you  had  told  him  might  happen?-: 
A.  That  his  friends  would  not  speak  to  him,  the  principal  thing;  h 
made  a  remark  that  they  went  across  the  street,  afraid  to  meet  him 

Q.  Where?— A.  In  (/'Fallon. 

Q.  In  O’Fallon,  his  home  town?— A.  Yes,  sir;  his  home  town. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  further  talk  with  him? — A.  No,  I  do  no 
know  that  I  did  after  that.  I  was  not  a  regular  attendant  at  th 
extra  session. 

Q.  The  extra  session  was  called  to  take  action  on  the  waterway  am 
some  special  matters? — A.  Waterway  and  primaries. 

Q.  You  never  did  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  State 
Senator,  did  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Jacob  Groves,  a  member  of  the  house  ?- 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  to  him,  or  in  his  presence,  that  you  could  liav 
received,  or  you  could  receive  money  or  other  thing  of  value,  if  yo 
would  vote  for  Lorimer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment.  I  object,  that  is  not  the  testimony 

that  is  not  the  testimony.  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  asking  him  if  he  ever  said  that,  or  that  r 

substance,  or  anything  like  it?  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  whether  he  did  or  not.  Mr.  Groves  testii 
fled — I  can  turn  to  it  in  a  moment — Groves  testified  that  he  talke' 
with  Mr.  Terrill;  Mr.  Terrill  told  him  that  he  could  have  gotte: 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  503 

$1,000  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  The  question  was  then  asked  if 
he  talked  to  anyone  else.  He  says :  “  Yes ;  Shaw  and  Donohue,”  but 
did  not — was  not  permitted  to  state  what  Shaw  and  Donohue  had  told 

him. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  not  bound  by  the  limitations  put  upon  that 
witness  or  the  judicious  use  of  the  language - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  I  withdraw  the  objection,  provided  counsel 
permits  the  witness  to  testify  and  does  not  testify  himself ;  that  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows:  The  objection  is  withdrawn.  That  will  save 
time.  Answer  the  question.  Read  the  question. — A.  Really,  I  do 
not  know  whether  I  had  any  talk  with  Mr.  Groves  or  not.  I  do  not 
remember  any  conversation. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  you  did  have  any  conversation  with  him,  did 
you  say  to  him  or  in  his  presence  that  you  had  been  offered  money  or 
that  you  could  get  money  for  voting  for  William  Lorimer? — A.  I 
did  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anything  further? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  just  a  moment. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  talk  to  Jacob  Groves  with  reference  to  money 
being  paid  at  Springfield  or  offered  at  Springfield  for  votes  for 
United  States  Senator  ? — A.  Well,  the  talk  was  kind  of  common  down 
there  at  the  time ;  I  do  not  know ;  I  might  have ;  I  would  not  be  posi¬ 
tive  about  that.  They  were  talking,  joking  away  frequently,  some- 
tunes. 

Q.  And  sometimes  serious  talk  ? — A.  Perhaps,  serious ;  yes. 

Q.  Why  did  White  say  that  his  constituency  were  sore  at  him  ? — A. 
Well,  I  presume  because  they  were. 

Q.  Why  ? — A.  Why  were  they  sore  at  him  ? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Because  he  voted  for  Lorimer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  heard  a  great  deal  of  jocular  talk  all  through 
the  regular  session,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  about  money  that 
could  or  would  or  might  be  used  for  different  things,  didn’t  you? — A. 
Yes;  I  heard  of  a  great  many  barrels  being  opened,  but  I  did  not 
see  any. 

Q.  You  never  heard  and  never  knew  anything  about  that,  except 
that  general  jocular  talk? — A.  That  is  all  I  knew  about  it. 

Q.  That  is  all. — A.  I  heard  of  barrels  being  opened,  but  when  they 
were  opened,  they  were  apples. 

Senator  Frazier.  That  talk  with  respect  to  money  increased  about 
that  time,  or  immediately  preceding  the  election  of  Senator  Lori¬ 
mer? — A.  No;  I  don’t  believe  it  did. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Prior  to  a  week — Senator  Lorimer  was  elected  on  the  26th  of 
May,  1909 — you  recall  that? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Your  vote  was  not  a  purchaseable  commodity,  was  it? — A. 

Xo,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  well  known  that  you  were  a  man  of  very  good  reputa¬ 
tion  at  Springfield? — A.  I  hope  so. 

Q.  "iou  know  you  were? — A.  A  man  does  not  really  know  his  own 
reputation. 


504  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Within  a  week  prior  to  the  election  of  William  Lorimer,  within 
a  week  prior  to  the  26th  of  May,  didn't  you  hear,  and  even  closer  to 
the  26th  of  May,  in  point  of  time,  didn't  you  hear  very  serious  dis¬ 
cussion,  with  reference  to  the  payment  of  money  for  votes  for  United 
States  Senator? — A.  Well,  I  can  not  say  that  I  di(J  previous  to  the 
election  of  Lorimer. 

Q.  When  did  you,  afterwards? — A.  I  heard  it  talked  afterwards. 

Q.  How  soon  afterwards? — A.  Well,  possibly  right  after,  maybe  a 
day  or  so  afterwards. 

Q.  In  Springfield? — A.  Yes;  in  Springfield. 

Q.  During  the  session  of  the  House? — A.  Yes. 

Senator  Frazier.  Who  did  you  hear  that  talk  from? — A.  I  do  not 
know  anybody  in  particular;  it  was  rather  made  a  joke — talked  in  a 
jocular  way. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  any  particular  person - A.  No ;  I  do  not. 

Q.  (Continuing.)  That  you  discussed  it  with? — A.  They  got  to¬ 
gether  and  talked  about  somebody  opening  a  barrel  or  getting  some 
money,  and  things  of  that  sort.  The  fact  is,  the  regular  session  and 
extra  session  were  both  a  joke  from  start  to  finish. 

Senator  IIeyburn.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  a  converastion  between  Jacob  Groves  and 
Mr.  Terrill? — A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  What? — A.  I  think  not.  I  did  not  know  Mr.  Terrill  but  very 
slightly;  I  do  not  hardly  think  I  was. 

Q.  With  reference  to  the  question  of  money  being  paid  to  vote  for 
Lorimer? — A.  I  do  not  remember  if  I  was;  I  do  not  recall. 

Q.  You  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  you  were  not? — A.  No;  I  would 
not  say  positively  that  the  matter  had  not  been  mentioned. 

Senator  Heyburn.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  talk  that  you  heard  after  the  election  of 
United  States  Senator  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  about  barrels  being 
opened,  and  money,  and  so  forth,  was  by  the  adherents  of  the  men 
who  had  been  candidates  and  who  were  defeated,  wasn't  it  ? — A.  Well. 
I  do  not  know  that  I  would  want  to  make  that  assertion,  because  I 
do  not  remember  who  those  parties  were.  If  I  did,  I  would  be  glad 
to  tell  the  committee.  I  would  not  like  to  limit  it  that  way,  because 
I  do  not  know. 

Q.  There  was  considerable  soreness  on  the  part  of  the  defeated 
candidates,  and  some  of  their  adherents,  that  they  did  not  suc¬ 
ceed? — A.  Yes;  I  think  there  was. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  either  side  need  this  witness  further  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  not  need  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  need  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  can  be  excused. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  to  recall  Mr.  Groves  for  a  moment. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  Groves  in  the  room  ? 

Senator  Gamble.  We  would  like  Mr.  Terrill  recalled. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  he  was  discharged,  but  possibly  the  mar¬ 
shal  can  get  in  touch  with  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  want  Mr.  Terrill  recalled  ? 

Senator  Heyburn.  At  a  proper  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  he  was  told  he  could  go. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  505 
Senator  Gamble.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Send  for  Mr.  Terrill.  I  believe  the  chairman  said 
le  might  go.  Isn’t  that  your  recollection? 

Senator  Burrows.  After  inquiry  that  he  would  not  be  needed  fur- 
her,  the  chair  said  that  he  might  be  discharged.  Mr.  Austrian:  Mr. 
Centner,  and  Mr.  Sterner  are  on  rebuttal. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  no;  these  are  Judge  Hanecy’s  witnesses. 
Senator  Burrows.  Which  one  of  them  is  on  rebuttal? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  believe  we  have  any  witnesses  here. 
Senator  IIeyburn.  Mr.  Chairman,  he  can  not  have  gone  very  far, 
nd  this  witness’s  testimony  makes  it  necessary  that  we  have  an 
mswer  from  Mr.  Terrill  in  regard  to  a  question.  I  will  state  the 

eason  it  is  proper.  At  page  1100 - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  afraid,  Mr.  Chairman - 

Senator  Heyburn.  Just  a  moment.  I  am  speaking  as  a  member 
if  the  committee,  and  not  under  any  rule  of  restriction. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  only  thing  is  somebody  might  see  him  before 
se  got  away. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  do  not  presume  that  men  are  dishonest.  At 
)age  1100  Mr.  Groves  testified  unqualifiedly  that  Mr.  Terrill  told 
iim  that  he  got  $1,000  for  voting  for  Lorimer,  and  this  witness  that 
ras  just  on  the  stand  declines  to  say  that  he  was  present. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  was  corrected  yesterday. 

Senator  Heyburn.  That  is  the  testimony  in  the  record,  and  unless 
he  witness  corrects  it - 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  witness  did  correct  it  yesterday. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  will  read  his  correction;  it  is  not  much  of  a 
orrection.  I  do  not  desire  to  detain  the  committee.  This  can  be 
alien  up  any  time,  only  we  do  not  desire  the  witness  to  get  away. 
Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  Donaghue  here  now  ? 

Senator  Johnston.  Page  1217,  Senator. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  do  you  want  Mr.  Groves? 

Jacob  Groves,  recalled  as  a  witness  herein,  was  examined  by  Mr. 
Austrian,  and  testified  as  follows : 

Q.  Mr.  Groves,  you  started  to  tell  the  committee  yesterday,  I  be- 
ieve  it  was  yesterday,  or  day  before  yesterday,  of  some  conversation 
bat  you  had  with  Mr.  Shaw. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Relating  to  this  subject-matter. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  just  state  to  the  committee  what  that  conversation  was 
nd  when  it  was  and  where  it  was? — A.  That  was  on  the — the  con- 
ersation  I  had  with  Mr.  Shaw  was  on  the  floor  of  the  house,  I  think 
t  was,  probably  the  day  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected,  or  the  day 
ollowing,  I  am  not  sure.  Mr.  Shaw  said  that  there  was  $1,000  in  it, 
s  he  understood,  for  the  man  that  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer. 
Senator  Burrows.  What  was  the  last  statement? — A.  For  the 
iembers  that  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  he  understood  thev  got 
1,000. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Was  that  the  entire  conversation  you  had  with 
Ir.  Shaw  on  that  subject? — A.  On  that  subject,  yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Hanecy: 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  Mr.  Shaw  said  that  to  you  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  did  not  tell  that  yesterday,  did  you? 


506  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHAEGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  was  stopped. 

The  Witness.  I  was  stopped  from  telling  it  yesterday. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Do  you  know  what  day  that  was? — A.  Not  posi¬ 
tively;  no,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  it  was  before  or  after  the  election?— 
A.  It  was  after  the  election.  I 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mav  I  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  Mr.  Shaw  be  held 

and  not  let  go  ?  I 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Shaw  will  remain;  notify  him  that  he  U 

to  remain. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  talk  this  matter  over  with  Mr.  Johi 
Callon  O’Laughlin  before  you  testified? 

(Witness  hesitates.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  this  man  here  [indicating]. — A.  Yes,  sir 
yes,  sir ;  I  talked  with  him. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Why  did  you  hesitate — what  did  you  hesitafi 
about  when  you  started  to  answer  before,  in  answering? 

The  Witness.  I  do  not  know  the  gentleman’s  name.  I  did  no’ 
know  whether  this  was  the  gentleman  here;  I  did  not  think  of  the 
name. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  his  name? — A.  Well,  no,  sir;  I  never  met  th( 
gentleman  until  here  a  few  moments  ago,  and  Monday  morning. 

Q.  But  you  met  him  every  day  since  that,  several  times  a  day 
haven’t  you? — A.  No;  I  just  seen  him  in  passing  here.  I  have  no 
talked  to  the  gentleman.  I  spoke  to  him  this  morning  about  getting 
away. 

Q.  You  did  talk  with  him  this  morning?— A.  Yes,  sir;  I  wantec 
to  get  away ;  I  was  anxious  to  go  home. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean,  you  wanted  to  get  away  from  him  or  fron 
the  town? — A.  I  wanted  to  get  away. 

Q.  Oh  ! — A.  I  wanted  to  be  excused. 

Q.  And  did  you  think  that  he  could  excuse  you? — A.  Well,  I  die 
not  know  whether  he  could  or  not ;  I  thought,  maybe,  he  could  inter 
cede  and  help  me  to  get  away. 

Q.  Did  you  think  Mr.  O'Laughlin  represented  this  honorable  com 
mittee?— A.  No;  I  did  not,  I  guess.  I  thought,  probably,  he  coult 
intercede  and  help  me  to  get  excused. 

Q.  You  thought  he  had  sufficient - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  I  object  now. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  hardly  worth  while,  to  follow  that  up. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  You  talked  with  him  this  morning,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  just  tol( 
you  I  did ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  talked  with  him  at  length  this  morning,  didn’t  you  ?- 
A.  No,  sir;  a  very  few  minutes.  He  was  in  a  hurry  and  said  h< 
would  see  me  later.  I  have  not  seen  him  since. 

Q.  You  talked  this  entire  matter  over,  all  you  testified  before,  whei 
you  were  on  the  stand,  and  this  time  with  Mr.  O’Laughlin,  before  voi 
testified  here  in  chief  yesterday? — A.  I  talked  with  Mr.  O  Laughlii 
in  regard  to  this  matter. 

Q.  I  say,  on  Monday  morning,  you  did  talk  over  this  entire  matter 
everything  you  have  testified  to  here,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  507 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  can  the  witness  be  excused  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  through  with  him. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Well,  I  have  been  going  over  this  testimony 
here,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  state  the  matter. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Yes. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Reexamination,  he  came  back,  this  witness  yes¬ 
terday  testified  with  reference  to  Mr.  Terrill,  and  what  Mr.  Terrill 
had  said  to  him.  I  desire  that  there  should  be  no  question  about  that 
before  he  is  excused.  I  will  see  whether  or  not  the  testimony  now, 
after  being  corrected,  states  it  corectly.  In  speaking  of  Mr.  Terrell 
yesterday,  you  were  asked  whether  or  not  he  stated  to  you  that  he 
could  receive  money  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  The  record  now, 
after  you  have  corrected  it,  shows  that  you  answered  that  he  stated 
that  he  could  have  earned  $1,000.  Now,  that  stands  as  your  answer, 
does  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  then  asked  to  repeat  it,  and  you  said:  Yes,  if  he 
would  vote  for  Lorimer.  That  was  Mr.  Terrill,  who  was  just  on  the 
stand  here  recently? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  desire  now  to  correct  that  any  further? — A.  I 
do  not  desire  to  correct  it;  no,  sir;  I  do  not  desire  to  correct  it  in 
any  way. 

Q.  Now,  was  Mr.  Shaw  present  at  that  conversation  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  such  conversation  had  between  you  and  anybody 
else  when  Mr.  Shaw  was  present? — A.  No;  I  think  not. 

Senator  Heyburn.  That  is  all. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  This  question  was  asked  you  when  you  took  the  stand  here  yes¬ 
terday,  when  you  were  recalled,  Mr.  Austrian  asking  the  question: 
;4  Mr.  Groves,  yesterday,  when  you  were  on  the  stand,  this  question 
was  put  to  you:  4  State  what,  if  any,  conversation  you  had  with  Mr. 
Terrill.’  ”  "That  is  the  end  of  the  quotation.  The  official  record 
shows  that  you  replied,  quoting:  “Mr.  Terrell  told  me  he  got  $1,000 
for  voting  for  Lorimer.  That  is  a  mistake;  he  didn't  tell  me  any 
such  thing/’  You  answered  that,  didn't  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  is  true? — A.  That  is  true;  yes,  sir;  he  didn't  tell  me 
that. 

Q.  He  said,  44  There  was  $1,000  in  sight,  or  something  like  that,  if 
I  would  vote  for  Lorimer.”  That  is  what  you  said  yesterday  when 
you  were  recalled,  isn’t  it? — A.  There  was  $1,000  in  sight;  yes,  sir; 
I  said. 

Q.  44  Or  something  like  that.”  I  will  read  your  answer  again : 
44  That  is  a  mistake ;  he  did  not  tell  me  any  such  thing.  He  said  he 
got — there  was  $1,000  in  sight,  or  something  like  that,  if  I  would 
vote  for  Lorimer.”  That  is  what  you  said  yesterday  on  the  stand 
here  when  you  were  recalled,  isn’t  it? — A.  Well,  if  that  is  there, 
probably  I  did. 

Q.  Well,  you  do  not  desire  to  change  that  in  any  respect,  do  you  ? — 
A.  I  desire  my  evidence  to  state  that  Mr. — this  way:  That  Mr. 
Terrill  told  me  that  he  could  receive  $1,000  for  his  vote  for  Mr. 
Lorimer.  That  he  could  have  received  $1,000  for  his  vote  for  Mr. 
Lorimer. 


508  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Why  did  you  say  yesterday  that  you  said  “  there  was  $1,00* 
in  sight,  or  something  like  that,  if  he  would  vote  for  Lorimer?  ”  Wh; 
did  you  put  it  that  way  yesterday,  and  the  way  you  have  put  it  her* 
this  morning? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know.  I  was  aiming  to  leave  th 
impression  all  the  time  that  Mr.  Terrill  had  said  that  he  could  ge 
the  $1,000.  They  were  just  the  words  that  I  used.  I  do  not  know  wh; 
it  was  placed  that  way;  I  did  not  aim  to  place  it  that  way. 

Q.  You  knew  that  Mr.  Terrill  was  a  very  strong  adherent  of  for 
mer  Senator  Hopkins,  didn’t  you? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  knew  that  he  had  been  voting  for  him? — A.  He  had  beei 
voting  most  of  the  time  for  Lieutenant-Governor  Sherman. 

Q.  Most  of  the  time? — A.  Y  es,  sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  he  voted  18  times  in  succession  for  Alber 
J.  Hopkins? — A.  No,  I  did  not  know  that;  I  knew  that  he  voted  oftei 
for  Mr.  Sherman. 

Q.  You  knew,  on  the  last  ballot,  and  the  one  preceding  that,  h< 
voted  for  Albert  J.  Hopkins? — A.  I  did  not  know  that,  the  one  pre 
ceeding ;  I  did  not  know  that. 

Q.  Didn't  you  know  all  the  time  while  he  was  voting  for  Lawrenc< 
B.  Sherman  that  he  was  a  strong  adherent  of  Albert  J.  Hopkins 
and  that  he  was  only  voting  for  Sherman  for  the  purpose  of  indue 
ing  somebod}^  else  to  break  up  on  their  votes  for  the  men  they  wer< 
voting  for,  so  that  he  could  in  that  way  get  them  to  vote  for  Hop 
kins? — A.  I  didn't  know  that  at  all. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  that  at  all? — A.  I  thought  he  was  a  frienc 
of  Mr.  Sherman  and  liked  to  see  him  elected.  That  was  my  opinion 

Q.  You  did  not  think  he  was  a  friend  of  Mr.  Hopkins? — A.  1 
thought  by  his  actions  that  he  was  a  friend  of  Mr.  Sherman’s. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  will  this  witness  be  needed  further? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  one  moment.  Has  Mr.  Donaghue  been  sub 
poenaed.  Mr.  Chairman? 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Donaghue? 

Senator  Gamble.  He  has  answered  by  telegram,  as  I  understand  it 
that  he  will  be  here  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  that  is  the  case,  I  would  either  like  to  have  this 
witness  to  state  what  the  conversation  with  Donaghue  was,  or  other 
wise  remain  until  Mr.  Donaghue  testifies. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  remain  for  the  present.  You  can  b( 
excused  now. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  the  memoranda  here  is  that  Daniel  J 
Donaghue  is  to  be  on  hand  to-day,  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Groves,  we  will  be  able  to  put  him  back  or 
right  after  Mr.  Donaghue  testifies. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  Mr.  Broderick. 

John  Broderick,  recalled  as  a  witness  herein,  testified  as  follows 

Senator  Burrows.  You  have  been  sworn,  I  believe,  Mr.  Brod¬ 
erick? — A.  I  have. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  is  your  full  name,  Mr.  Broderick? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  be  permitted  to  make 
a  statement,  if  the  committee  will  permit  me. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  509 

Senator  Burroavs.  You  are  the  attorney  of  the  witness? 

Mr.  Daavson.  Yes,  sir;  I  submitted  to  the  committee  on  behalf  of 
dr.  Broderick  the  other  day,  and  stated  the  position  we  advised  him 
o  take.  By  “  we  ”  I  mean  myself  and  the  associate  counsel,  who 
lave  charge  of  his  case  which  is  pending  in  Sangamon  County  on 
,  charge  of  bribery,  growing  out  of  the  alleged  offers  of  money, 
eceiving  of  same,  and  giving  of  same,  by  Senator  Broderick  to  one 
).  W.  Holstlaw,  a  senator  in  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  and 
rour  honorable  body,  day  before  yesterday,  took  the  proposition,  as 

understood  it,  under  advisement,  and  it  Avas  expected  that  there 
vmuld  be  a  decision  yesterday,  and  I  was  informed  that  there  would 
)robably  be  one  to-day.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  chairman  of  this 
ommittee  if  they  have  passed  upon  the  proposition  that  I  made  at 
hat  time,  Avhich  affects  my  client.  Are  they  ready  to  give  me  any 
nswer  at  this  time  with  respect  to  it? 

Senator  Burroavs.  That  was  the  proposition  for  an  agreement 
•etween  counsel  that  this  witness  could  be  examined  upon  some  ques- 
ions  and  not  examined  on  others,  or  cross-examined. 

Mr.  Dawson.  In  substance  that  is  it,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  specifi- 
ally  it  was  this:  That  this  Avitness  was  ready  iioav  to  ansAver  all 
[iiestions  relative  to  the  charges  made  by  Holstlaw  or  the  charges 
hat  might  be  made  by  anybody  else  as  to  whether  Senator  Broderick 
lad  made  a  promise  to  give  money  or  any  valuable  thing  to  Senator 
lolstlaw  or  any  other  member  of  the  legislature  of  the  forty-sixth 
reneral  assembly  of  Illinois  up  to  the  time,  as  alleged  by  Senator 
lolstaw,  on  or  about  the  16th  day  of  June,  when,  as  he  alleges, 
Roderick  gaA^e  him  $2,500,  or  in  relation  to  the  alleged  charge  of 
senator  Holstlaw  that  he  receded  from  Broderick  $700  at  a  later 
late  as  his  share  of  a  “jackpot”  so  called.  At  that  time,  also,  I 
aade  this  proposition  to  your  honorable  body,  that  Broderick  would 
nswer  in  detail  any  questions  up  to  the  times  I  have  mentioned,  and 
rould  answer  in  detail  after  the  trial  of  his  case  in  Springfield, 
nswer  any  and  all  questions  put  to  him  by  your  body  or  anybody 
oncerned  relative  to  the  details;  and  I  stated  as  my  position  at 
hat  time  that  I  took  that  position  in  the  performance  of  my  SAvorn 
lutv  as  an  attorney  at  Hav  of  this  State,  and  after  consultation  and 
dvising  with  Mr.  Broderick  and  the  other  attorneys  associated 
nth  me,  who  do  not  live  here  but  live  in  Sangamon  County,  in 
Springfield.  I  took  that  position,  Mr.  Chairman,  realizing  the  im- 
>ortance  of  the  nature  of  this  inquiry,  held  as  it  is  by  your  sub- 
ommittee,  which  is  a  part  of  the  United  States  Senate,  the  highest 
•ody  in  this  land,  and  realizing  the  necessity  of  you  gentlemen 
•rosecuting  a  thorough  inquiry  in  order  that  you  may  make  a 
•roper  report  to  your  full  committee,  and  later  to  the  body  of  the 
Senate,  with  no  desire  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Broderick  that  his  ansAvers 
hould  in  any  way  handicap  you  or  in  any  way  stop  the  thorough 
•rosecution  into  the  details  of  this  matter,  no  desire  by  our  action, 
s  his  attorneys,  or  his  action  pursuant  to  our  advice,  to  reflect  in 
ny  Avay  by  so  doing  upon  the  gentleman  Avho  received  the  election 
o  your  body  on  the  26th  day  of  May,  1900. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  just  simply  Avant  to  state  this,  in  conclusion: 
hat  before  I  would  instruct  Mr.  Broderick  to  say  anything  here 
a-day  under  the  conditions  as  they  exist,  before  I  would  advise  him 
'>  take  advantage  of  any  rights  that  he  may  have  as  a  man  Avho  has 


510  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

been  charged  with  the  commission  of  a  felony,  I  would  like  at  this 
time — I  would  like  to  know  at  this  time  what  you  gentlemen  have 
to  say  upon  the  proposition  submitted,  for  some  ruling  from  your 
body  relative  thereto.  I  do  not  want  to  at  this  time,  Mr.  Chairman — 
I  do  not  want  at  this  time,  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  com¬ 
mittee,  to  take  any  position  or  instruct  Mr.  Broderick  to  do  anything 
until  I  know  what  your  finding  is  relative  to  these  points. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  think,  Mr.  Dawson,  you  will  readily  under¬ 
stand  as  a  lawyer  it  would  be  impractical,  if  not  improper,  for  the 
committee  to  enter  into  any  agreement  as  to  a  limitation  of  the  ex¬ 
amination  of  this  witness.  He  must,  if  he  comes  before  the  com¬ 
mittee,  come  as  any  other  witness  and  be  subject  to  direct  and  cross 
examination,  and  it  will  be  time  enough  if  he  desires  to  avail  himself 
as  to  whether  he  wishes  to  answer,  it  will  be  time  enough  to  do  that 
when  the  question  is  reached;  therefore  no  agreement  can  be  made, 
nor  understanding. 

Mr.  Austrian,  have  you  anything  further? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes ;  I  have  not  started. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Mr.  Chairman,  could  I  ask  a  question?  Is  that  the 
only  statement  that  the  committee  wishes  to  express  on  the  other 
phase  of  the  proposition  that  I  submitted?  You  have  said,  if  I 
understand  you  correctly,  that  any  rights  that  the  witness  desires  to 
avail  himself  of  be  taken  up  in  connection  with  the  propounding 
of  questions.  Now,  I  also  made  the  proposition  that  he  would  an¬ 
swer  questions  to  a  certain  point  and  be  willing  to  answer  the  bal¬ 
ance  of  them  after  the  trial  of  his  case  in  Springfield. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  are  unanimously  of  the  opinion 
that  they  can  enter  into  no  agreement  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Yes;  then  I  would  make  this  request,  Mr.  Chairman, 
of  your  committee,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  this  matter  has  been  under 
consideration  by  the  committee  for  a  few  days,  or  parts  thereof,  and 
I,  as  his  counsel,  did  not  know  or  could  not  anticipate  what  action  the 
committee  would  take.  I  in  connection  with  the  other  attorneys  of 
Mr.  Broderick  agreed  upon  a  course  of  action  with  respect  to  him 
and  I  submitted  it  here.  Now,  I  would  ask  of  this  committee,  in 
view  of  the  rulings  that  have  been  made,  in  order  that  I  may  intelli¬ 
gently  and  properly  advise  Mr.  Broderick  what  to  do  relative  to  this 
hearing,  I  be  given  an  opportunity  to  consult  and  advise  with  him 
and  also  the  other  gentlemen  who  are  interested  in  his  defense,  upon 
whom  he  has  to  rely  in  the  trial  for  his  personal  liberty,  and  I  would 
ask  a  reasonable  time  for  that  purpose  of  your  body. 

Senator  Burrows.  How  much  time  do  you  think  would  be  neces¬ 
sary  for  consultation  with  your  associates? 

Mr.  Dawson.  All  those  gentlemen  are  in  Springfield,  that  is  185 
miles  away,  and  they  are  practicing  lawyers  and  have,  of  course,  the 
duties  to  perform  that  active  lawyers  have.  I  would  promise  to  do 
this:  Get  into  consultation  with  them  immediately  and  advise  with 
them  and  also  advise  with  my  client.  A  reasonable  time,  I  suppose, 
ought  to  take  from  twenty-four  to  forty-eight  hours,  anyway.  I 
want  to  act  intelligently  in  this  matter.  My  first  care  and  certain 
duty  is  to  conserve  the  interests  of  my  client,  and  I  do  not  want  to 
do  anything  in  this  matter  without  consulting  with  the  other  gentle¬ 
men  in  the  case. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  511 

Senator  Gamble.  How  soon  could  you  reach  the  other  attorneys 
n  the  case,  and  how  soon  might  it  be  possible  for  them  to  reach 
Chicago? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Well,  that,  of  course,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand, 
rhey  are  all  men,  prominent  attorneys  in  Springfield.  Many  of  the 
courts  are  in  session;  they  hold  courts  in  different  counties  in  the 
drcuit  down  there,  and  it  may  be  possible  one  or  the  other  might  be 
iway  from  Springfield  in  attendance  on  court  somewhere  in  the 
ircuit.  Now,  I  do  not  want  to  promise;  I  could  not  do  that.  I  will 
'et  in  touch  with  them  at  once,  as  quickly  as  I  can  get  down  there, 
f  necessary,  if  they  can  not  leave  their  business  there. 

Senator  Frazier.  Have  you  been  in  touch  with  them  during  the 
>endency  of  this  matter?  Haven’t  you  had  any  communication  with 
hose  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Not  since  the  matter  was  submitted  to  your  honor - 
ble  body  the  other  day.  I  was  awaiting  your  decision.  I  did  not 
mow  there  was  any  necessity  for  it.  I  could  not  anticipate  what 
rou  would  do,  of  course. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  can’t  you  communicate  with  your  asso- 
iates  by  phone  at  once  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  realize  in  a  matter  of  this 
:ind,  where  we  would  have  to  be  in  consultation  with  the  client  him- 
elf,  and  advise  with  him.  We  have  to  receive  his  instructions,  of 
ourse,  finally;  he  may  accept  our  advice  or  reject  it,  as  he  sees  fit. 
think  I  would  want  to  have  him  in  a  position  where  we  could  all 
alk  it  over  together. 

Senator  Burrows.  Your  client,  of  course,  you  can  consult  with 
dm  at  once. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  I  suppose  the  other  attor- 
teys  would  want  to  have  him  there  with  them  at  the  same  time.  I 
'on’t  know  as  to  that.  I  don’t  know  how  much  dependence  he  would 
(lace  upon  me  alone;  whatever  he  commissions  me  to  do,  of  course 

will  do. 

Senator  Burrows.  How  many  attorneys  are  associated  with  you 
n  the  defense? 

Mr.  Dawson.  There  are  three  at  least,  and  possibly  four. 

Senator  Burrows.  Where  do  they  reside? 

Mr.  Dawson.  In  Springfield. 

Senator  Burrows.  All  of  them  do;  all  of  them  in  Spring-field? 
low  long  does  it  take  a  person  to  travel  from  Springfield  here  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Five  hours  is  the  run;  about  185  miles. 

Senator  Burrows.  Then,  there  would  be  no  diffiulty  in  having 
our  associates  here  to-morrow  morning? 

Mr.  Dawson.  There  might  be. 

Senator  Gamble.  Would  you  not  be  able  to  reach  them  to-day, 
nd  they  be  able,  at  least  some  of  them,  to  reach  here  to-night,  so 
hat  a  conference  might  be  had  to-night,  if  necessary,  and  then  by 
a-morrow  morning  the  matter  could  be  taken  up? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Senator,  that  might  or  might  not  be  possible.  As  I 
ay,  there  are  a  number  of  counties  in  the  circuit  in  which  courts  are 
eing  held.  They  do  not  practice  alone  in  Springfield,  which  is  the 
ounty  seat  of  Sangamon  County,  but  there  are  other  counties  in  the 
istrict. 


512  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  wouldn’t  want  to  bind  you,  but  it  would  occur 
to  me  that  we  could  hardly  wait  for  the  cooperation  or  consultation 
with  all  of  the  attorneys.  Some  of  them  might  be  out  on  the  circuit. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Probably  the  most  expeditious  way  would  be  to  go 
down  there  and  bring  them  in  there  instead  of  relying  on  them  to 
come  here.  They  might  be  held  there  by  some  important  cases  pend¬ 
ing  there  in  court  and  would  not  want  to  leave  from  there  at  that 
time,  but  I  could  consult  with  them  at  night  there  after  court  was 
over.  It  would  be  more  practical,  I  think,  to  do  it  there  than  to 
bring  them  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  you  could  go  down  there? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Burrows.  You  could  go  down  there  yourself  and  consult  with 
your  associates? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Yes;  I  could  do  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  could  do  that  this  afternoon? 

Mr.  Austrian,  3  o'clock,  and  get  there  at  8  o’clock,  leaving  there 
at  midnight  and  getting  back  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  Dawson.  What  train  at  3  o’clock?  What  road? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  the  Alton. 

Mr.  Dawson.  6.30  on  the  Alton,  and  gets  there  at  11.16.  I  know 
that  road  pretty  well.  I  used  to  go  down  there  pretty  often. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Dawson,  the  committee,  under  the  circum¬ 
stances,  will  give  you  until  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o’clock  for  this 
consultation,  and  then  the  committee  desires  to  proceed  in  the  case. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  want  to  draw  your  attention 
to  one  fact;  if  I  should  leave  here  at  the  earliest  possible  moment, 
which  I  think  would  be  6.30,  that  brings  me  there  at  11.16  at  night 
which  would  necessitate  me  getting  these  gentlemen  out  of  their  beds 
or  getting  to  towns  that  they  might  be  in - 

Senator  Paynter.  Senator,  couldn’t  you  get — four  lawyers  down 
there — couldn’t  you  get  one  of  them  to  come  here  and  notify  them 
over  the  telephone  of  any  question  you  desire  to  discuss  and  let  him 
consult  with  his  associates  down  there  and  let  him  come  down  here 
and  consult  with  you? 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  will  attempt  to  get  in  touch  with  them  all  to-night 
and  get  back  here  by  to-morrow  morning.  Well,  I  couldn’t  hardly 
do  that. 

Senator  Frazier.  By  you  going  down  there,  Mr.  Dawson,  you  will 
have  to  make  the  return" trip;  if  you  telephone  and  let  the  gentlemei 
come  up  here,  you  will  have  all  night  and  until  to-morrow  morning 
at  10  o’clock  to  consult. 

Mr.  Dawson.  They  might  not  be  at  Springfield;  they  may  have 
their  cases - 

Senator  Frazier.  We  can  not  wait  on  their  cases. 

Mr.  Dawson.  There  is  no  desire  to  delay  any  matter  here  at  all 
I  want  to  perform  my  duty— that  is  all — conscientiously. 

Senator  Frazier.  I  am  sure  of  it. 

Senator  Paynter.  You  want  your  associates  to  share  in  the  re 
sponsibility  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  do ;  it  is  only  professional  courtesy  and  right  thai 
I  do  so. 

Senator  Frazier.  If  you  do  not  get  all  of  them,  one  or  two  pos¬ 
sibly  would  be  sufficient? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  513 

Mr.  Dawson.  If  I  go  down  there  to-night  I  would  have  until— if 
[  could  get  until  2  o’clock  to-morrow  I  could  get  this  so  we  would 
mow  exactly  where  we  were  at.  I  would  like  to  have  at  least  until 
l  o’clock  to-morrow. 

Senator  Paynter.  Are  there  any  witnesses  wTe  could  hear  in  the 
neantime  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Browme  is  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  us  finish  this  first. 

Mr.  Dawson.  You  have  your  consultation  with  regard  to  Mr. 
Irowne  too. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Browne  is  represented  by  other  counsel. 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  am  representing  Mr.  Browne",  also. 

Senator  Gamble.  Let  us  dispose  of  this  first  and  then  take  up  the 

>ther. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  think  it  would  be  well  for  the  representatives, 
f  he  represents  Mr.  Browne,  he  should  understand  now  he  better  be 
onsulting  about  the  Browne  case  too. 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  have  been. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  represent  Mr.  Browne? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Tes;  I  am  one  of  the  counsel  representing  Mr. 
Browne. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  counsel  associated  with  you  in  this  case  asso¬ 
rted  in  the  Browne  case? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Not  the  same  all  of  them,  but  some  of  them  are,  and 
t  was  not  definitely  settled,  and  I  do  not  believe  he  has  yet,  who  will 
ventually  represent  him  on  the  trial  if  it  is  held.  But  there  are  a 
umber  of  the  gentlemen  that  are  representing  Mr.  Broderick  who 
fill  also  represent  Mr.  Browne.  Now,  I  want  to  say  frankly  to  you 
;entlemen,  if  you  permit  me  to  make  a  statement  with  regard  to 
Ir.  Browne - 

Senator  Burrows.  Not  now.  Now,  can  you  by  telegraph  or  by 
hone  find  out  where  the  associate  counsel  are  now? 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  probably  can  by  phone  and  probably  can  arrange 
D-night  sometime  for  a  conference  with  them.  I  think  I  can  arrange 
hose  details. 

Senator  Frazier.  You  better  have  them  come  here  instead  of  hav- 
ig  you  and  the  witness  go  down  there. 

Mr.  Dawson.  There  might  be  reasons  why  it  might  not  be  possible 
i  do  that  but  I  will  do  the  very  best  I  can  to  get  in  consultation  with 
hem  and  I  will  get  back  here  and  report  at  the  time  you  gentlemen 
How  me  to  report.  I  would  like  to  have  it  made  at  least  until  2 
’clock  to-morrow.  I  have  to  travel  a  distance  of  185  miles  or  prob- 
bly  twice  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Dawson,  the  committee  arc  anxious  to  make 
very  effort  because  the  committee  must  go  on  with  this  case  to- 
lorrow  morning  at  10  o’clock. 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  understand  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  can  not  consume  so  much  time  here,  but  of 
lurse  the  committee  desires  to  extend  you  every  courtesy  possible. 

Mr.  Dawson.  They  have  done  so. 

Senator  Burrows.  But  you  must  make  Herculean  efforts  to  get 
ssociate  counsel  here  or  consult  with  them  so  as  to  arrive  at  a 
inclusion. 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  promise  to  do  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  Very  well. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 33 


514  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOEIMER. 


Mr.  Dawson.  Is  that  the  order,  at  10,  or  will  I  be  permitted  to 

have  until  2  ?  ^ 

Senator  Burrows.  Oh,  no ;  we  have  got  to  go  on  at  10  o  clock.  The 
gentlemen  can  get  out  of  bed  one  night  on  a  case  of  this  kind. 

Mr.  Dawson.  All  right,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  have  to  get  a  flying 
machine  I  will  try  to  do  what  you  have  ordered  me  to  do. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  have  had  them  running  between  here  and 
Springfield  recently.  As  to  the  witness,  you  are  excused  until  to¬ 
morrow  morning  at  10  o’clock. 

The  Witness.  Thanks. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  Browne  here?  Call  Mr.  Browne. 

Mr.  Nixon.  He  is  coming,  Senator. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Browne,  will  you  raise  your  right  hand? 


Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  a  witness  called  herein,  being  first  duly  swore 
by  Senator  Burrows,  testified  as  follows: 

Mr.  Dawson.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  make  a  state¬ 
ment  as  to  Mr.  Browne’s  position. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Representing  him,  as  one  of  his  counsel,  I  would  ask 
of  this  committee,  in  view  of  the  decision  that  you  have  rendered  ir 
the  matter  of  John  Broderick,  I  would  like  to  have  the  same  oppor 
tunitv  to  confer  with  the  attorneys  who  are  associated  with  me  in  th< 
defense  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  on  the  charge  which  is  pending  now  a 
Springfield,  to  have  an  opportunity  of  consulting  with  those  at 
torneys  down  there  relative  to  the  position  that  Mr.  Browne  wil 
take  in  this  inquiry,  and  I  would  ask  at  least  the  same  time  that  wa; 
allowed  me  with  reference  to  Mr.  Broderick. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  will  be  granted;  to-morrow  morning  a 
10  o’clock ;  and,  Mr.  Browne,  you  are  excused  until  to-morrow  morn 
ing  at  10  o’clock.  Is  Mr.  Wilson  here — Robert  E.  Wilson  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understand  Mr.  Wilson  has  not  been  served. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  have  just  sent  for  the  sergeant- at- arms.  Mi 
Bumphrey,  will  you  call  the  attorney,  Mr.  Dawson.  Mr.  Dawson,  d 
you  know  Robert  J.  Wilson? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Robert  J.?  Yes;  I  know  a  Robert  J.  Wilson. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  mean  Robert  E.  Wilson? 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  know  Robert  E.  Wilson? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Robert  E. ;  yes. 

Senator  Gamble.  Robert  E.  Wilson,  I  think,  is  correct,  and  he  l 
a  member  of  the  present  legislature. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Robert  E. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  he  a  member  of  the  present  legislature? 

Mr.  Dawson.  He  was  a  member  of  the  last  legislature. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  he  is  yet. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Yes;  he  is  yet. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  represent  him  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  am  not  representing  him  at  present ;  I  may  later. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  know  where  he  is? 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  do  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Gamble.  Do  you  expect  to  represent  him  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  The  probabilities  are  I  may  represent  him  in  Spring 
field  in  a  case  pending  down  there. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  515 

Senator  Gamble.  And  do  yon  expect  to  make  the  same  request  on 
is  behalf  before  this  committee  as  you  have  made  on  behalf  of  the 
cher  witnesses? 

Mr.  Daavson.  I  do  not  expect  to  at  the  present  time,  because  I  do 
ot  represent  him  in  any  matter  just  now,  except  the  matter  that  is 
ending  in  Springfield. 

Senator  Gamble.  Do  you  know  who  represents  him  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  can  not  say  as  to  that.  I  do  not  know  who  he  has 
3tained.  I  do  not  know  who  the  attorneys  of  record  are  in  the  case 
iat  is  pending  here. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Is  there  an  indictment  against  him  in  Springfield, 

DO? 

Mr.  Dawson.  There  is  an  indictment  against  him  in  Springfield. 
Senator  Frazier.  Also  one  here? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Also  one  here  in  Cook  County. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  Mr.  Dawson  said  he  represented  him  in 
pringfield. 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  was  there  when  he  gave  bail,  that  is  all;  but  I 
ave  made  no  arrangements  to  represent  him  as  yet,  but  I  may  rep- 
?sent  him  in  Springfield  later. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  suggest,  myself,  that  you  be  in  a  posi- 
ion  where  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  ask  a  delay  on  his  behalf. 
Whatever  conferences  you  desire  tohave  with  him,  *if  you  are  going 
3  represent  him,  have  them  between  now  and  the  time  he  is  here. 

Mr.  Dawson.  No  arrangements  have  been  made  with  me  to  repre- 
mt  him  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  witness,  Judge,  that  you  could 
resent  ? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Is  that  all,  gentlemen? 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  We  are  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Daw- 

)n. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  not  any  except  those  I  have  just  indicated. 
Senator  Burrows.  What  were  those  names? 

Judge  Hanecy.  They  were  Woods,  Stermer,  and  Zentner.  Now, 
may  have  one  or  two  more. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  they  all  in  rebuttal,  Judge? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  Mr.  "Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  are  part  of  your  case;  you  do  not  mean  re- 
uttal.  They  are  rebuttal  of  our  case. 

J udge  Hanecy.  I  know  what  the  Senator  means  and  so  do  you. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  defense. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  the  defense. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  Zentner  here? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  think  they  are.  I  told  them  I  would  not 
eed  them  until  they  got  through.  They  were  here  yesterday  and 
robably  the  day  before,  but  I  understood  this  honorable  committee 
j  say  I  would  not  be  required  to  call  them  until  they  got  through. 
Senator  Heyburn.  This  being  an  investigation,  I  think  we  should 
ave  all  of  the  witnesses  on  both  sides  here.  There  is  no  question  of 
efense  and  plaintiff. 

Senator  Gamble.  Yes;  have  all  witnesses  here  and  have  them  in 
*gular  attendance,  so  that  at  any  time  they  can  be  called. 

Senator  Heyburn.  There  is  no  question  of  defense  or  plaintiff. 


516  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Those  witnesses  are  all  in  Chicago;  Stermer  and 
Zentner  all  reside  here.  They  were  here  yesterday.  They  all  reside 
in  Chicago,  don’t  they,  Judge? 

Senator  Gamble.  Mr.  Donahue  has  not  yet  put  in  an  appearance? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understand  not. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  notation  is  that  he  was  to  be  here  this  after¬ 
noon.  I 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  is  the  one  that  Mr.  Groves  referred  to  and  that 

was  sent  for  yesterday.  We  do  not  intend,  even  if  he  is  called— wi 
do  not  intend  to  ask  him  anything  except  with  reference  to  the  con¬ 
versation  outlined  by  Mr.  Groves. 

Senator  Gamble.  So  it  will  be  very  short? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  we  never  saw  him  and  do  not  know  who  he  is 

Senator  Burrows.  If  counsel  will  make  an  effort  to  get  those  wit¬ 
nesses _ excepting  the  other  matters  that  go  on  to-morrow — this  after 

noon,  so  we  can  make  as  much  progress  as  possible,  we  would  like  tc 
have  you  do  so,  and  the  committee  will  adjourn  until  2  o'clock. 

(Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  2  o’clock  this  after¬ 
noon.) 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 


Wednesday,  October  5,  1910. 

At  2  o’clock  p.  m.  the  committee  met  pursu&nt  to  adjournment 
whereupon  the  following  proceedings  were  had : 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  be  in  order. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understand  Mr.  Donohue  has  responded  to  th< 
subpoena — I  was  so  informed. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  understands  Mr.  Donohue  v 
here.  Will  you  call  Mr.  Donohue  ? 

Daniel  D.  Donohue,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  firs 
duly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  ivas  examined  in  chief  by  Mr 
Austrian  and  testified  as  follows: 

Q.  Mr.  Donohue,  what  is  your  name,  please,  sir? — A.  Daniel  D 
Donohue. 

Q.  What  is  your  business? — A.  Lawyer,  principally. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside? — A.  Bloomington,  Ill. 

Q.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  ? — A. 


was. 


Q.  Republican  or  Democrat?- — A.  Democrat. 

Q.  Senate  or  house — a  member  of  the  house? — A.  Member  of  th 

house.  . 

Q.  Do  you  recall  the  election  of  William  Lonrner  to  the  IJnitec 

States  Senate? — A.  I  do. 

Q.  That  took  place  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909? — A.  That  is  m; 


recollection ;  yes. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Mr.  Donohue,  were  you  approached  for  the  purpose  of  bavin; 
vou  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? — A.  I  was  asked  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer 

yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  A  little  louder,  Mr.  Donohue —A.  I  say  I  wa 
asked  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer ;  yes. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  517 

Mr.  Austrian.  Was  anything  said  with  reference  to  any  promise 
r  reward  or  inducement  of  any  kind  if  you  did  vote  for  Mr.  Lori- 
ler  ? — A.  Nothing  was  ever  said  along  that  line. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  didn’t  get  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Nothing  was  ever  said  along  that  line. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  didn’t  catch  the  first  word. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  ever  have  a  conversation  with  Jacob  J. 
Proves  ? — A.  I  recollect  having  a  conversation  with  him ;  yes. 

Q.  With  reference  to  this  subject? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  committee  what  conversation  you  had  with 
im? — A.  Well,  Mr.  Groves  did  most  of  the  talking,  I  think.  He 
omplained  to  me  about  some  member,  he  said,  that  came  to  his  room 
ome  night — I  do  not  recollect  exactly  what  night,  some  night  before 
be  election  of  Lorimer — and  asked  him  to  vote  for  Lorimer.  Before 
hat,  I  think  it  took  place  that  we  got  into  a  conversation  about  mem- 
ers  voting  for  Lorimer,  and  I  said — I  recollect  I  said  that  I  guess 
bey  tried  to  get  all  the  Democrats  to  vote  for  Lorimer.  I  told  him 
ley  tried  to  get  me  vote  for  him,  and  then,  in  a  speech  delivered  in 
ae  house  there,  he  said  something  about  somebody  knocking  at  the 
oor,  and  we  got  into  a  conversation  about  the  knocking  at  the  door, 
nd  he  said  some  member  of  the  house  came  to  his  room  there 
ne  night  and  asked  him  to  vote  for  Lorimer.  I  think  he  said  some- 
bing  about  some  consideration  or  something;  I  do  not  recollect  the 
xact  words  of  Mr.  Groves ;  I  do  not  know ;  he  said  something  about 
aving  it  published  in  the  paper  or  something,  or  something  along 
lis  line,  and  he  asked  my  advice  about  it,  and  I  told  him,  I  think, 
lat  probably  he  should  have  told  what  he  knew  when  he  made  the 
peech  in  the  house,  or  that  he  should  have  told  all  he  knew  at  that 
ane  if  he  told  any  of  it.  I  think  I  asked  him  did  he  have  any  wit- 
esses  to  it,  and  he  said  u  No."  That  is  my  recollection.  I  can  not 
ive  the  exact  words. 

Q.  That  is  your  recollection  of  the  conversation? — A.  That  is  my 
^collection  of  the  conversation;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  detailed  your  part  in  the  conversation  also,  to  the  best 
f  your  recollection? — A.  There  was  so  much  happened,  I  can  not 
collect;  I  can  not  recollect  what  happened,  exactly.  I  talked  to  a 
ood  many  members.  I  was  working  against  the  election  of  Lorimer, 
nd  trying  to  keep  them  in  line  for  Stringer  for  United  States  Sen- 
tor,  and  I  told,  in  all  probability,  if  anyone  was  elected  that  the  next 
‘gislature  will  be  Democratic,  on  account  of  the  scandal  in  the  State, 
nd  change  in  the  political  views,  along  the  way  of  national  adminis- 
ation,  along  those  lines. 

Q.  Who  approached  you  with  reference  to  voting  for  Mr.  Lori- 
ler? — A.  Mr.  Rilev,  the  day  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  Anyone  prior  to  that  time? — A.  That  is,  a  number  of  fellows 
sked  what  about  getting  all  the  Democrats  in  line  to  vote  for  Lori- 
ler;  we  talked  about  the  party  proposition. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  said  it  was  bad  politics;  that  he  would  go  to  Wash- 
lgton  and  be  a  Republican  and  vote  on  Republican  measures,  and 
le  Democrats  would  be  responsible  for  his  acts  down  there,  and  I 
dvised  against  it.  In  fact,  I  used  pretty  strong  language  against  a 
roposition  of  that  character. 

Q.  You  were  very  outspoken  in  your  position? — A.  Oh,  yes;  I 
pposed  the  election  of  any  Republican. 


518  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  That  was  well  known  down  there? — A.  Yes;  it  was  well  known 
In  fact,  I  delivered  my  vote  for  one  Republican  and  would  never  vote 
for  another  as  long  as  I  was  a  Democrat.  That  was  for  the  electioi 
of  the  speaker,  I  think.  I  was  very  pronounced  in  my  views  agains 
the  election  of  a  Republican. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  You  never  did  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  State; 
Senator? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  And  you  were  not  for  him  in  any  sense  of  the  word? — A.  Oh 
no;  I  was  against  Lorimer,  or  any  other  Republican  for  that  matter 

Q.  You  were  against  William  Lorimer  not  because  of  his  personal 
ity,  but  because  of  his  politics? — A.  Principally,  yes.  I  thought  h 
would  be  just  as  good  as  any  other  Republican;  that  was  my  notioi 
about  it. 

Q.  And  if  you  voted  for  any  Republican,  you  would  as  soon  vot< 
for  William  Lorimer  as  anybody  else? — A.  I  think  so,  yes;  I  dicin' 
see  any  difference. 

Q.  But  you  did  everything  that  you  could  honorably  do  to  preven 
the  election  of  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator,  or  am 
other  Republican? — A.  I  did  everything  I  could;  yes. 

Q.  Nobody  ever  offered  you  any  money  or  other  thing  of  value  i 
you  would  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — A 
They  did  not;  no. 

Q’.  And  nobody  ever  intimated  to  you  that  you  would  get  or  could 
get  money  or  other  thing  of  value  if  you  did  vote  for  William  Lori 
mer  for  United  States  Senator,  did  they?— A.  They  did  not;  no,  sir 

Q.  And  you  never  heard  anybody  else  offer  any  other  member  o 
the  house,  or  the  senate— the  joint  assembly,  I  mean— any  money  o 
other  thing  of  value  if  he  or  they  would  vote  for  William  Lorimer  fo 
United  States  Senator?— A.  No;  I  never  heard  anybody  offer  am 
money. 

Q.  And  you  never  heard  that  anybody  had  ever  offered  or  paid,  o 
offered  to  pay,  anything  to  any  member  of  the  joint  assembly  becaus 
they  did  vote  for  William  Lorimer  or  had  voted  for  him,  did  you?- 
A.  No  particular  member,  only  general  talk  along  those  lines. 

Q.  And  that  general  talk  along  those  lines  came  from  the  friend 
of  the  defeated  candidates  ?— A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  who  it  did  com 
from ;  it  was  general  talk  along  those  lines.  Of  course,  there  is  a  lo 
of  talk  like  that  at  any  time,  whether  there  is  any  truth  in  it  or  not 
I  don’t  know,  but  there  was  a  general  talk  along  those  lines. 

Q.  Those  who  had  been  voting  for  Albert  J.  Hopkins,  the  Repub 
lican  candidate,  were  very  bitter  because  he  was  not  elected,  after  th 
election  of  Senator  Lorimer,  were  they  not? — A.  They  were  ver; 
bitter;  yes. 

Q.  And  they  said  a  great  many  things  that  you  knew  were  not  sc 
didn’t  they? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know — I  could  not  particularize  an; 
of  them,  although  some  of  them  said  they  would  vote  for  Stringe 
before  they  would  vote  for  any  other  Republican;  that  is,  some  o 
those  Hopkins  Republicans;  that  is  the  man  that  fell  down  by  th 
primaries.  They  said  Stringer  was  the  man  that  ought  to  be  electee 
if  Hopkins  was  not  elected,  because  his  vote  was  presented  to  th 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  519 

people  of  Illinois  and  voted  for  in  the  primaries,  and  he  ought  to  be 
the  next  choice  of  the  people.  I  remember  of  them  stating  that. 

Q.  That  was  quite  a  pronounced  expression  on  the  part  of  a  num¬ 
ber  of  the  Hopkins - A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Those  members  of  the  joint  session  who  voted  for  Hop¬ 
kins  % — A.  One  man  from  my  district  was  very  pronounced,  Mr.  Mon- 
telius,  and  then  Mr.  Perkins,  from  Lincoln,  spoke  along  those  lines. 
Of  course,  Mr.  Perkins  is  a  townsman  of  Mr.  Stringer. 

Q.  You  were  quite  active,  Mr.  Donohue,  during  all  of  that  session, 
and  took  an  active  part  in  all  the  legislation  and  other  things  that 
properly  came  before  the  house  or  the  joint  session,  weren’t  you? — 
A.  Why,  I  took  part  in  things ;  yes.  I  don’t  know  how  active  I  was. 

Q.  You  were  recognized  as  one  of  the  active  men  in  the  house?— 
A.  I  think  they  considered  me  that  way,  probably ;  I  do  not  know  it 
exactly. 

Q.  The  session  continued  from  the  early  part  of  January,  the  first 
few  days  in  January,  up  to  the  4th  or  5th  of  June,  didn’t  it? — A.  I 
think  probably  the  4th  of  June,  if  my  recollection  serves  me  right. 

Q.  And  it  was  a  fact,  wasn’t  it,  Mr.  Donohue,  that  practically 
every  member  of  the  joint  session  was  tired  of  the  continued  balloting 
there  and  the  long  session  and  wanted  to  elect  somebody  United  States 
Senator  and  get  away  ? — A.  I  would  not  say  that  is  true ;  no. 

Q.  Well,  it  was  true  as  to  a  great  many,  wasn’t  it? — A.  Well,  I 
think  that  there  was  a  kind  of  a  general  feeling  that  we  would  ad¬ 
journ  along  about  the  1st  of  June  before  we  did  adjourn,  although 
that  was  generally  understood  down  there. 

Q.  And  it  was  the  general  feeling  and  the  desire  was  expressed  that 
some  one  should  be  elected  as  United  States  Senator  before  the  ad¬ 
journment? — A.  Well,  I  can  not  think  that  was  an  excuse  for  some 
Democrats  to  vote  for  Lorimer ;  I  do  not  think  it  was.  I  think  I  told 
somebody  that  I  did  not  think  we  were  going  to  adjourn,  anyway. 

Q.  And  you  opposed  any  doctrine  or  any  theory  of  that  kind — 
opposed  the  election  of  anybody  for  United  States  Senator  if  you 
could  elect  a  Democrat? — A.  Yes;  I  was  elected  a  Democrat  to  a 
political  office,  and  would  not  represent  my  people,  I  thought,  if  I 
did  not  vote  for  a  Democrat  who  represented  Democratic  principles. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  John  Callan  O’Lauglilin,  Mr.  Donohue? — 
A.  I  do  not,  unless  some  gentleman  back  here  in  the  corner  pointed 
him  out  to  me  a  while  ago ;  I  would  not  recognize  him  now,  unless  it 
is  this  gentleman  in  here  [indicating].  I  think  that  is  the  gentleman 
they  pointed  out — some  gentleman  back  in  here,  right  here,  I  guess 
[indicating] . 

Q.  Well,  one  is  an  Irishman  and  the  other  is  a  Jew.  Which  one 
would  you  pick  out  as  the  Irishman? — A.  I  think  both  look  like 
Jews — a  little  bit. 

Q.  The  smaller  one  of  the  two,  I  mean  physically,  is  John  Callan 
O’Laughlin.  Did  he  talk  with  you,  Mr.  Donohue? — A.  I  never  re¬ 
member  of  seeing  the  gentleman  before. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  stated  in  response  to  a  question  put  to  you  by 
counsel,  if  you  had  ever  heard  of  anyone — if  you  had  ever  heard  of 
anyone  who  had  been  paid  or  offered.  Will  you  tell  this  committee 
what  you  did  hear  with  reference  to  that  subject  during  that  session 


520  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

and  immediately  before  and  immediately  after  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lorimer? — A.  Well,  as  I  stated  to  this  gentleman,  what  I  am  speak¬ 
ing  of  now  took  place  in  Springfield;  nothing  with  reference  to  it 
took  place  in  these  trials  at  all.  I  am  speaking  of  what  happened  at 
Springfield. 

Q.  Y  es. — A.  The  first  thing  I  heard  down  there,  I  heard  Mr.  Hop¬ 
kins  was  trying  to  buy  some  votes;  that  is  what  I  heard  first. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  That  was  the  general  talk,  and  I  could  not  trace  it 
down,  I  could  not  tell  now  Avho  said  it,  and  then  that  kind  of  died 
away,  and  then  after  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  the  thing  started 
again  that  they  were — everything  Avas  not  straight  down  there  at 
Springfield  with  reference  to  the  election  of  United  States  Senator. 
And  everybody,  I  think — I  was  suspicious  myself  about  the  way 
things  went  down  there.  Of  course,  I  didn’t  have  any  direct  evidence, 
only  from  general  appearance,  I  could  not  see  Avhy  so  many  Democrats 
were  going  oA'er  in  a  body  to  vote  for  a  Republican.  They  may  have 
had  reasons,  and  be  more  liberal  in  their  views  than  I  am,  and  might 
have  gone  oA’er.  I  could  not  see  it  that  Avay.  I  am  a  Democrat,  and  I 
am  a  pretty  strong  partisan. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burroavs.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Donohue.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do 
not  think  there  was  any  desire  on  the  part  of  the  witness,  or  probably 
anybody  else,  to  use  Senator  Hopkins  in  that  connection,  and  I  will 
be  entirely  willing  that  his  name  shall  be  eliminated  from  the  record 
in  that  connection  and  that  the  record  shall  read  only  that  some  other 
Republican  candidate.  It  is  hardly  fair  to  Senator  Hopkins  or  any¬ 
body  else. 

Senator  Burroaats.  Any  objection? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  no  objection. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  no  objection;  I  think  that  would  be  the  fair 
thing  to  do. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  Avould  be  one  to  have  all  the  testimony  as  to 
rumor  eliminated,  because  rumor  will  not  haA-e  the  slightest  effect 
with  me  in  determining  this  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  that  is  right ;  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  I 
wanted  that  eliminated. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Wait. 

Senator  Johnston.  Did  the  witness  Groves  state  that  Mr.  Donohue 
said  anything  to  him  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes:  he  is  one  of  the  three. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  he  did  not  say  he  heard.  He  said  he  talked 
about  something,  and  then  he  Avas  stopped  by  the  chair. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  the  impression  that  was  left  on  my  mind,  it 
seems  to  me,  it  could  not  be  different  on  any  of  the  others  here,  it  was 
that  Mr.  Groves  said  that  the  three  men  had  stated  to  him — that  it 
was  stated  in  such  a  way  that  the  three  men  had  indicated  by  language 
or  some  other  Avay  that  they  heard  somebody  else  had  been  paid  or 
could  have  had  money.  I  understood  him  to  say  that  Mr.  Donohue, 
Mr.  Terrill,  and  Mr.  Shaw  had  said  that  they  could  haATe  had  a  thou¬ 
sand  dollars  if  they  had  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer.  Now,  three  of 
them  have  been  on  the  witness  stand  and  said  that  nothing  of  the 
kind  took  place. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  521 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  not  his  testimony  at  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  was  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  His  testimony  was  that  he  had - 

Senator  Frazier.  The  record  will  show  what  his  testimony  is. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  only  direct  testimony  was  with  reference  to 
is  talk  with  Terrill,  and  when  he  started  to  give  the  talk  with  this 
;entleman,  Mr.  Shaw,  he  was  stopped  by  the  chair,  until  they  were 
ailed. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  the  witness  Groves  simply  stated  that  he 
allied  with  this  man. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Gamble.  And  he  mentioned  other  names. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  possibly  I  made  the  inquiry  myself, 
lentioned  the  men’s  names  without  stating  the  substance  of  the  con- 
ersation,  but  it  was  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  bribery. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  otherwise  the  three  men  would  not  be  called 

ere. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Here  it  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  page  1099 : 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  anyone  else  on  the  subject? 
'hen  Senator  Burrows  asked : 

Q.  Who  was  the  man? — A.  Douglas  Patterson. 

Q.  What  other  conversation  did  you  have,'  in  reference  to  the  subject-mat- 
;r? — A.  With  Patterson? 

Q.  V  ith  him  or  anyone  else? — A.  Well,  there  was  two  or  three  spoke  to  me 
i  regard  to  the  matter. 

Q.  Who? — A,  Mr.  Tyrrel,  of  Colchester,  Ill.,  a  member  of  the  house. 

Q.  Who  else? — A.  Homer  Shaw,  a  member  of  the  house,  and  Mr.  Donohue, 
ember  of  the  house. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  they  said  and  what  you  said? 

Senator  Burrows.  Just  wait  a  moment - 

(Continuing).  And  then  I  was  stopped.  Then  the  question: 

Q.  State  what,  if  any,  conversation  you  had  with  Terrill?— A.  Mr.  Terrill 
'Id  me  he  got  a  thousand  dollars  for  voting  for  Lorimer. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  move  that  be  stricken  out. 

And  then  you  directed  that  the  witness  be  sent  for.  He  did  not 
ndertake  to  testify  at  all  what  his  talk  was  with  Mr.  Terrill  or  Mr. 
•onohue.  That  is  pages  1099  and  1100  of  the  record.  He  never  un- 
ertook  to  detail  the  conversation  with  either  one  of  the  two  men, 
icept  Mr.  Terrill. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  if  you  will  go  to  page  1103  of  the  record, 
enator  Gamble  says — 

Mr.  Groves,  were  like  conversations  had  with  the  other  two  members  of  the 
gislature  to  whom  you  refer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  Avas  the  answer? 

Judge  Hanecy.  “A.  Not  as  positive.” 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  read  on. 

Judge  Hanecy  (reading).  “  Q.  It  was  upon  the  same  subject- 
atter? — A.  The  same  subject;  yes.” 

Mr.  Austrian.  Jhen,  u  \ou  need  not  state  what  the  conversation 

as.” 


522  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  right.  Otherwise  these  three  gentlemer 
would^not  be  called  here  if  that  was  not  the  subject-matter.  Ther 
the  question  by  Senator  Gamble : 

Q.  You  need  not  state  what  the  conversation  was,  as  I  understand ;  there  wen 
three  whose  names  you  have  already  given? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  there  others? — A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  remember  of  any  others.  ; 

Q.  And  this  occurred,  you  stated,  possibly  in  December,  1909? — A.  Well,  witl 
Terrell,  but  the  other  two  gentlemen,  I  think,  was  during  the  regular  session 
I  am  sure  it  was. 

Q.  During  what  time? — A.  During  the  regular  session.  That  was  just  i 
short  time  after  Lorimer's  election.  That  is  my  reason. 

Q.  With  Terrell  it  was  in  December? 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  it  necessary  to  pursue  that  any  further? 
Judge  Hanecy.  Not  any  further,  Mr.  Chairman,  unless  you  desir 

it.  I  think  that  identifies  it  enough. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  is  agreed  on  all  sides  that  the  statement  o 
the  witness  in  relation  to  Senator  Hopkins  may  be  stricken  from  th 
record. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  I  do  not  desire,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  th 
whole  matter  be  stricken,  but  that  his  name  be  eliminated. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  which  relates  to  Senator  Hopkins? 

Judge  Hanecy.  In  connection  with  that? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  But  that  the  statement  was  made  that  there  wer 

rumors  there  about  others  being - 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all  in  except  the  name. 

Senator  Burrows.  Erase  the  name  that  pointed  to  him  as  the  ma 
concerning  whom  these  rumors  existed.  Have  you  anything  further 
Mr.  Austrian.  Yes.  I  think  we  will  recall  Mr.  Groves  just  for 

moment. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  desire  Mr.  Groves? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  for  a  moment. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  Groves  present? 

Jacob  Groves,  recalled  as  a  witness  herein,  and  testified  furthe 
as  follows: 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Groves,  will  you  tell  the  committee,  if  vo 
please,  sir,  what,  if  any,  conversation  you  had  with  Mr.  Donohue  ?- 
A.  A  short  time  after  the  conversation  that  I  had  with  Mr.  Sha^ 
I  was  talking  to  Mr.  Donohue  in  regard  to  Mr.  Lorimer's  electioi 
and  I  told  him  what  Mr.  Shaw  had  told  me— that  is,  he  understoo 
there  was  $1,000 - 

Judge  Hanecy.  Speak  up  louder,  Mr.  Groves. 

Senator  Burrows.  A  little  louder;  I  can  not  hear  you? — A.  I  tol 
him  Mr.  Shaw  had  stated  that  there  were  a  thousand  dollars,  he  ui 
derstood  there  were  a  thousand  dollars  given  to  the  man  that  vote 
for  Mr.  Lorimer— Democrats— and  Mr.  Donohue  stated  he  supposed 
would  be  more  than  that,  especially  to  a  man  that  can  make  a  speec 

in  favor  of  Mr.  Lorimer.  #  .  q 

Mr.  Austrian.  Is  that  your  recollection  of  the  conversation  f- 

A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all  of  this  testimony  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

The  Witness.  I  understand  then,  I  am  excused? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  523 

Mr.  Austrian.  With  the  consent  of  the  committee;  I  am  through. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  want  him  any  more? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Donohue  would  like  the  answer  of  Mr.  Groves 
"ead. 

(The  foregoing  testimony  last  given  by  Mr.  Groves  was  thereupon 
nead  by  the  reporter.) 

Daniel  D.  Donohue,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first 
iuly  sworn,  was  examined  by  Judge  Hanecy,  and  testified  as  follows : 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  ever  have  such  a  conversation  with  Mr. 
droves? — A.  I  do  not  remember  of  any  such  conversation.  I  may 
lave  had  it,  because,  as  I  say,  I  was  very  much  wrought  up  as  to 
vhat  was  happening  down  there,  and  might  have  said  that  in  reply 
;o  what  Mr.  Groves  said.  I  will  not  say  yes  or  no  on  that  question ; 
[  might  have  said  that.  If  I  did  say  it,  it  was  a  remark,  a  mere 
nference  of  what  transpired,  and  had  reference,  if  I  did  say  it,  had 
reference  to  Lee  O’Neil  Browne’s  speech,  because  I  replied  to  his 
speech,  and  we  were  bitter  toward  each  other,  that  is  all. 

Q.  If  you  did  say  that,  or  that  in  substance,  or  anything  like  it, 
Mr.  Donohue,  was  there  anything  to  sustain  it  except  your  general 
mger  at  the  conditions  as  they  existed  there? — A.  Well,  not — I  did 
lot  state  only  just  on  account  of  the  conditions  as  they  existed  there; 
yes. 

Q.  Were  any  of  these  conditions  the  presence  of  money  that  yeu 
mew  of,  or  offering  of  money  by  anybody? — A.  No. 

Q.  Or  offer  of  anything  of  value  by  anybody? — A.  No. 

Q.  For  a  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — ■ 
4.  Nothing  that  I  know  of,  positively,  by  way  of  money  or  other 
things  of  value.  It  was  just  said  from  the  general  appearance  of 
filings,  an  inference  I  used  from  what  was  done. 

Q.  And  you  said  you  were  angry  because - A.  Well,  we  were  not 

very  friendly,  Mr.  Browne  and  I ;  we  did  not  agree  all  through  the 
session,  do  not  agree  as  yet. 

Q.  You  were  not  one  of  the  Browne  faction? — A.  No;  I  was  not, 
fir. 

Q.  You  were  one  of  the  Tippet? — A.  No;  I  was  not  one  of  the 
Tippet. 

Q.  I  believe  you  were  unattached  there? — A.  I  was  placed  in 
leither  one  ofAhem. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Gamble.  You  were  acting  on  your  own  responsibility? — 
4.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Donohue,  if  you  say  you  made  that  state- 
nent  which  was  based  on  facts,  conditions,  and  circumstances  sur¬ 
rounding,  did  you  hear  from  anybody  any  statement  or  anything 
ibout  anything  that  money  had  been  paid  for  votes? — A.  No;  I  never 
leard  a  thousand  dollars  mentioned  up  to  that  time,  and  if  Mr. 
droves  said  that  I  do  not  remember  that  he  said  it. 

Q.  There  was  talk  of  money  having  been  used? — A.  There  was 
ialk  of  money  having  been  used  generally. 

Q.  You  could  not  locate  it  as  to  anybody  that  said  he  got  it, 
pou  didn’t  know  of  anybody? — A.  No;  I  didn’t  know  of  anybody 
hat  got  it. 


524  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  That  was  immediately  preceding  the  election  and  immediately 
after  the  election? — A.  More  after  the  election - 

Q.  More  after  the  election? — A.  Than  preceding  the  election. 
I  do  not  believe  that  I  heard,  I  can  not  say  that  I  heard  it  before 
the  election.  More  after  the  election. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  did  it  refer  to  the  talk  of  money  having  been 
used — was  applied  to  other  candidates  than  William  Lorimer;  wasn’t 
it?— A.  Y  es.  Not  that  it  had  been  used;  it  would  be  used — they 
would  like  to  use  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  Do  you  need  this  witness  any 
more  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  can  be  excused,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  we  are  through  with  Mr.  Groves,  too. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Groves — do  you  need  him  any  more? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  desire  him  any  further. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  can  be  excused. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  call  my  witnesses,  if  the  Chairman  and  com¬ 
mittee  desire  me  to  go  on. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  would  like  to  put  in  the  time,  if  you  can. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Very  well,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Chairman,  while  we  are  waiting  to  fill  in  here,  I  desire  to  offer 
a  certified  copy  of  the  record  of  the  criminal  court  of  the  county  of 
Cook,  showing  the  dates  when  the  Browne  trial  commenced  and  ended, 
and  then  I  want  to  offer  a  certified — and  then  I  want  to  offer  a  certi¬ 
fied — I  do  not  care  to  read  any  of  it — of  the  short  petition  by  the 
state’s  attorney,  and  the  order  calling  for  a  grand  jury — a  special 
grand  jury — while  that  trial  was  on,  that  grand  jury  that  Mr.  AYay- 
man  testified  in  relation  to,  where  only  two  parties  were  indicted, 
and  they  were  the  two  witnesses  who  have  testified  for  the  defense 
in  the  Browne  case. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  care  to  read  them,  but  I  want  the  record 
to  show  that  these  are  the  records,  giving  the  accurate  dates. 

Mr.  Austrian.  There  will  be  no  dispute  about  the  dates.  Mr. 
Wayman  gave  the  dates,  and  there  is  no  dispute  about  the  dates  if 
the  dates  have  any  part  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  this  matter  rest;  there  is  a  witness  on  the 
stand.  We  will  proceed  with  this,  and  consider  that  matter  later  on. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  making  that  offer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understand  that  offer  has  not  been  passed  on? 

Senator  Burrows.  It  has  not. 

Katherine  A.  Woods,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first 
duly  sworn,  was  examined  by  Judge  Hanecy,  and  testified  as  follows: 

Judge  Hanecy.  What  is  your  full  name? — A.  Katherine  A. 
Woods. 

Q.  Are  you  in  any  business  or  occupation  ? — A.  Well,  I  run  a  cigar 
stand  at  the  Elmer  Hotel  in  East  St.  Louis,  Ill. 

Q.  Do  you  own  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Anybody  with  you  in  the  ownership  of  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live? — A.  612  North  Twenty-third  street,  East 
St.  Louis,  Ill. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  525 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  there? — A.  I  have  lived  there  three 
nonths. 

Q.  How  long? — A.  Three  months  at  that  address. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  East  St.  Louis? — A.  All  my  life. 

Q.  You  were  born  there?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  are  now  of  age  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  A.  White? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him? — A.  About  two  years. 

Q.  The  last  two  years,  or  two  years  ? — A.  The  last  two  years. 

Q.  Where  did  he  live  when  you  first  knew  him? — A.  In  O'Fallon, 
II. 

Q.  That  is  in  St.  Clair  Countv,  the  countv  vou  live  in? — A.  Yes, 

ir. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  see  him  during  the  two  years  that  you  had 
mown  him? — A.  Well,  I  don't  know  exactly  how  often,  but  he  came 
nto  my  cigar  stand  frequently  and  spent  hours  in  there. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  before  he  became  a  member  of  the  last 
general  assembly  of  Illinois? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  after  he  was  elected  to  the  legislature? — A.  Just  before 
le  was  elected. 

Q.  Just  before.  You  became  acquainted  with  him? — A.  YYs,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  him  and  go  with  him  to  dinner,  or  to  some 
neal  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  often? — A.  Once. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  him  and  go  with  him  to  some  place  of  amuse- 
uent  ? — A.  Yres,  sir. 

Q.  How  often  ? — A.  Three  times. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  him  at  any  other  occasion  and  go  with  him  to  any 
)lace,  other  than  the  places  of  amusement,  and  to  dinner  or  to  some 
neal? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go?  When  was  the  first  occasion  that  you  met  . 
lim? — A.  In  October. 

Q.  Where  you  went  to,  either  some  place  of  amusement  or  to  a 
neal;  which  was  the  first  one  of  those  four? — A.  I  was  only  with 
lim  three  times. 

Q.  I  thought  you  went  three  times  to  places  of  amusement  and  once 
o  a  meal? — A.  Three — well,  w'e  went  to  places  of  amusement,  too. 

Q.  Well,  which  was  the  first  occasion,  the  date  of  it? — A.  In  Octo- 
>er,  the  latter  part  of  October,  1  do  not  know  the  exact  date. 

Q.  What  year  ? — A.  1909. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  then  ? — A.  We  went  to  the  matinee,  and  from 
here  we  went  to  a  millinery  store,  and  from  there  we  went  to  Nagel’s 
nd  had  dinner,  and  from  there  we  went  to  a  show  that  evening  and 
>ack  home. 

Q.  Was  that  all  in  East  St.  Louis? — A.  That  wTas  in  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Q.  All  of  those  places? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  theater,  millinery  store,  and  the  place  where  you  took  the 
neal? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  you  came  back  across  the  bridge  to  East  St.  Louis? — 

L  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  When  were  the  other  two  occasions? — A.  One  was  in  November 
>f  the  same  year,  1909. 

Q.  And  what  wTas  done  at  that  time?  Where  did  you  go? — A.  We 
vent  to  a  show  in  East  St.  Louis,  after  I  quit  work  at  9  o’clock. 


526  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

*  Q.  And  the  third  occasion?— A.  Was  in  April,  I  think. 

Q.  What  year?— A.  1910,  just  before  the  story  came  out  in  th( 
newspapers. 

Q.  Now,  on  the  first  occasion  that  you  have  referred  to,  did  yoi 
talk  with  Mr.  "White  about  his  exeprience  in  the  legislature,  anc 
what  he  was  going  to  do,  and  so  forth,  or  did  he  talk  with  you  ? — A 
He  told  me  about  it. 

Q.  At  that  time  did  Charles  A.  White  tell  you,  Miss  Woods 
that - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment.  I  submit  the  proper  way  to  ex 
amine  the  witness  is  to  ask  the  witness  what  Charles  A.  White  told 
and  not  have  counsel  testifying. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  is  an  impeaching  question - 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  very  true. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  that  is  just  the  argument  this  gentlemai 
made  to  this  honorable  body  earlier,  insisting  I  should  not  do  that, 
Mr.  Austrian.  That  was  an  impeaching  question  of  Mr.  'White’s 
Judge  Hanecy.  Of  Mr.  White.  I  have  never  impeached  any  wit 
ness  that  was  on  the  stand;  I  was  impeaching  some  other  witnes: 
by  other  witnesses  that  were  called. 

Mr.  Austrian.  As  I  understand  the  rule,  you  ask  a  witness,  o 
this  witness,  for  instance,  what  conversation  she  had,  and  then  i 
she  testifies  as  to  what  conversation  she  had  you  put  the  direct  ques 
tion  to  her:  “Did  you,  on  such  and  such  a  time,  have  such  and  sue! 
conversation?  ” 

Senator  Gamble.  Is  not  the  rule  the  reverse? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

Senator  Gamble.  Isn’t  the  rule  the  reverse;  that  is,  the  impeachm< 
question  should  be  submitted  and  then  you,  on  cross-examination,  g 
into  the  details? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  the  impeaching  question  must  be  specific  t 
the  witness  you  are  seeking  to  impeach;  that  is,  when  you  put  it  t 
Mr.  White/  But  Judge  Hanecy  is  endeavoring  to  impeach  Mi 
White’s  testimony  by  this  witness.  The  first  rule  is,  you  must  as 
her  what  conversation  she  had,  and  then  put  the  impeaching  questioi 
Senator  Gamble.  I  think  that  is  right,  to  direct  her  attention  t 
the  particular  testimony,  time,  and  place,  and  then  submit  the  im 
peaching  question  that  has  already  been  submitted  to  Mr.  White.  j 
Mr.  Austrian.  After  she  has  testified  what  conversation  she  hac 
Senator  Gamble.  No;  that  is  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Austrian.  This  is  not  cross-examination;  this  is  impeachm 

testimony. 

Senator  Gamble.  You  will  have  an  opportunity  to  cross-examm 
her. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Isn’t  this  the  rule - - 

Senator  Gamble.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Isn’t  this  the  reason  of  the  rule:  You  get  substai 

tive  evidence  in -  • 

Senator  Gamble.  I  do  not  care  for  any  argument  here  but  an 
practice  where  I  have  ever  been,  the  witness  White  was  on  the  staAd 
and  they  propose  to  impeach  him,  the  question,  technically,  is  sun 
mitted  to  him,  and  he  answers,  “No,”  or  he  answers,  “Yes.”  If  fl 
answers  “  No,”  why  then  the  same  question  can  be  submitted  to  tb 


INVESTIGATION"  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  527 

witness  by  whom  it  is  proposed  to  impeach  him  with,  and  then  cross- 
xamination  will  follow,  at  least  that  has  been  my  experience. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  that  must  be  done. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  put  the  question  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  At  that  time,  Miss  Woods,  did  Charles  A.  White 
all  you  that  he  was  writing  a  history  of  his  life  and  of  the  Illinois 
agislature? — A.  Yes,  sir;  he  did. 

Q.  At  the  same  time  and  place  did  he  also  say  to  you  that  he 
xpected  to  make  a  fortune  out  of  it,  and  that  the  Lorimer  bunch 
rould  have  to  pay  him  money  enough  to  keep  him  the  rest  of  his 
ife,  and  if  the  Lorimer  bunch  did  not  do  it  he  would  make  it  hot 
or  Lorimer?  Did  he  say  that  to  you,  or  that  in  substance? — A.  Yes, 
ir;  he  did. 

Q.  Did  he  further  state  in  that  conversation  that  he  was  going  to 
un  for  Congress;  that  rich  people  of  Chicago  were  backing  him; 
nd  that  he  had  spent  $3,000  and  a  lot  of  time  in  making  the  history 
f  his  life  and  of  the  Illinois  legislature;  and  that  he  was  going  to 
et  it  back? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  then  say  to  him,  at  the  same  time  and  place,  “  You 
rill  land  in  the  penitentiary,  Charley;”  and  did  he  reply,  “No;  I 
ron’t.  I  have  influential  friends,  who  will  protect  me  ?  ”  Did  that 
onversation  occur? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  was  in  the  fall,  you  said,  of  1909  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Charles  A.  White  take  you — well,  you  have  already  told — 
d  some  place,  to  some  play  in  East  St.  Louis?  Now,  I  am  calling 
our  attention  to  that  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  your  way  home  that  evening  did  Charles  A.  White  tell  you 
a  substance  that  he  was  going  to  get  a  lot  of  money  out  of  the 
jorimer  bunch,  enough  to  take  care  of  him  the  rest  of  his  life? — A. 
res,  sir. 

Q.  On  that  same  day  at  luncheon  or  meal  did  Charles  A.  White 
ay  to  you  that  he  was  going  to  get  something  out  of  Reddenburg, 
leaning  Congressman  Reddenburg,  and  he  was  going  to  get  some- 
hing  on  Reddenburg,  meaning  Congressman  Reddenburg,  and  he 
Tas  going  to  put  him  out  of  business;  and  that  he  (White)  would 
ben  run  for  Congress  and  settle  down  and  get  married? — A.  Yes, 
ir;  but  that  was  on  the  first  trip. 

Q.  That  was  on  the  first  occasion? — A.  Yes,  sir.  I  only  went  to 
mch  with  him  once. 

Q.  Did  you  go  out  to  walk  with  Charles  A.  White  from  the  hotel 
here  your  cigar  stand  is,  about  Thanksgiving  time,  1909? — A.  He 
Talked  home  with  me  one  evening  from  work. 

Q.  On  that  occasion,  in  front  of  your  house,  did  lie  tell  you  to 
atch  the  Chicago  papers,  and  that  he  had  been  up  in  Chicago  sev- 
ral  times,  and  that  you  should  watch  the  Chicago  papers,  for  he  was 
oing  to  make  out  of  the  Lorimer  bunch  enough  to  live  comfortably; 
nd  that  he  was  going  on  a  trip  to  Europe  when  he  got  the  trouble 
carted,  and  that  when  he  got  the  trouble  started  he  was  going  to  let 
lem  fight  it  out? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  On  that  occasion  did  Mr.  White  say  to  you,  did  Charles  A. 
Vhite  say  to  you  that  he  (White) — no;  on  that  same  occasion  did 
ou  say  to  Charles  A.  White  that  he  (White)  would  get  into  trouble, 
nd  did  he  answer,  “  No ;  I  do  not  fear.  I  have  rich  people  helping 


528  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

me,  and  they  will  take  care  of  me.  I  am  not  afraid  of  getting  int< 
trouble.  I  have  killed  two  men  down  South  and  nothing  happenec 
to  me  for  it.  One  of  them  I  killed  was  a  white  man  and  the  othe; 
was  a  nigger?” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  have  a  typewriting  machine,  Miss  Wood? — A.  Yes,  sir 

Q.  And  you  do  typewriting? — A.  Some. 

Q.  You  have  a  sister,  have  you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Younger  than  you? — A.  Yes;  she  works  for  me. 

Q.  She  worked  for  you  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  centennial  week  in  St.  Louis,  last  year,  did  Mr.  Whit 
say  to  you,  “  I  have  got  it  in  for  Lorimer,  Senator  Lorimer  and  hi 
bunch,  and  they  will  have  to  come  across  or  I  will  make  them  pa^ 
dearly  for  it.  I  have  spent  $5,000  this  session,  having  a  good  timi 
and  looking  up  the  dope  on  them.  I  have  a  friend  in  Chicago  wh< 
will  back  me  up  and  furnish  me  all  the  money  I  want?  A.  Yes,  sir 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  This  centennial  week  story  that  you  have  just  narrated,  or  th< 
conversation,  that  is  the  first  time  you  have  testified  about  that,  is  i 
not  ?  This  is  the  first  time  ? — A.  Centennial  ? 

Q.  Yes.  This  last  conversation  that  you  are  telling  us  you  havi 
had  with  Mr.  White,  you  have  never  testified  with  reference  to  tha 
before,  have  you? — A"  Yes,  I  testified  to  the  three  trips  I  was  witl 
him. 

Q.  But  this  centennial  week,  this  conversation  about  getting 
$5,000? — A.  Yes;  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  testify  to  that  before? — A.  Yes;  I  have. 

Q.  On  what  trial  of  the  Browne  case? — A.  On  both  of  them. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  $8,000? — A.  Three  thousand ;  I  don’t  think  I  did 

Q.  Did  Charley  White  tell  you  he  was  going  to  get  $3,000  or  $5,000?- 
A.  He  didn’t  tell  me  he  was  going  to  get  any  certain  amount.  H 
told  me  he  had  spent  that  amount  and  he  got  it  looking  up  this  dope 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  had  spent  $3,000  or  $5,000?— A.  Five  thousand 
I  think  it  was. 

Q.  He  didn’t  tell  you  he  had  spent  3,000,  did  he? — A.  And  he  hac 
spent  two  or  three  thousand  taking  lake  trips.  f 

Q.  Oh,  he  told  you  he  had  spent  two  or  three  thousand  dollars  tak 
ing  lake  trips;  is  that  right? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  With  whom? — A.  He  didn’t  say;  he  never  said,  and  I  neve 

asked  him.  I 

Q.  And  he  at  no  time  told  you  with  whom  he  had  taken  those  lak 

trips? — A.  No,  sir;  he  did  not. 

Q.  What  is  your  name? — A.  Catherine  A.  Woods. 

Q.  Miss  Woods,  when  did  you  first  detail  to  anyone  all  this  accural 
conversation  concerning  which  you  have  just  testified? — A.  To  E.  C 
Singers. 

Q.  Mr.  Singers? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  ?— A.  The  9th  day  of  May. 

Q.  1910?—  A.  1910. 

Q.  And  they  took  place  along  in  the  fall — late  fall  of  1909  ? — A 
Yes  sir. 

Q.  Now,  the  first  one  was  when? — A.  That  I  told  that? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  In  May  9,  1910. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  529 

Q.  No;  the  first  conversation  was  when? — A.  Oh,  in  October. 

Q.  In  October,  1909? — A.  In  1909. 

Q.  The  last  conversation  was  when  ? — A.  In  April. 

Q.  1910?— A.  1910. 

Q.  Have  you  told  this  committee  all  of  the  conversations  you  had 
with  Mr.  White  on  this  subject? — A.  Yes;  about  all. 

Q.  All? — A.  I  can  not  remember  every  word. 

Q.  Did  Charles  A.  White,  on  one  of  these  occasions,  take  out  a 
revolver  and  put  it  on  the  table? — A.  No;  he  had  it  in  his  hand. 

Q.  He  had  it  in  his  hand.  Did  he  tell  you  he  had  killed  a  white  man 
and  a  nigger? — A.  Yes,  sir;  he  did. 

Q.  No  doubt  about  that,  is  there? — A.  Well,  I  didn’t  believe  it  at 
the  time. 

Q.  And  what  conversation  was  that  in? — A.  Which  one? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  On  the  second  trip,  I  think. 

Q.  1  ou  still  went  out  with  him  ? — A.  He  walked  home  with  me 
himself  and  the  operator  at  the  hotel. 

Q.  You  didn’t  object  to  his  presence,  did  you  ? — A.  No ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  object  to  associating  with  him  after  he  told  you  of 
these  bad  things  he  was  going  to  do? — A.  No;  I  didn’t  think  he  was 
dangerous;  I  didn’t  believe  him. 

Q.  You  didn’t  believe  it  was  true? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  didn’t  inform  anyone  with  reference  to  it,  did  you? — A. 
No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  knew  Congressman  Rodenberg,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  didn’t  tell  Con  gressman  Rodenberg  Charley  White  was 
?oing  to  get  him? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  And  then  after  putting  him  out  of  office,  was  going  to  try  and 
^et  his  job? — A.  No;  I  didn’t  believe  he  could. 

Q.  You  continued  to  associate  with  Mr.  White,  didn’t  you? — A. 
No,  sir;  I  didn’t,  any  more  than  he  would  patronize  my  cigar  stand. 

Q.  You  knew  him  pretty  well  by  that  time? — A.  Well,  I  had  to 
leal  with  him  at  the  cigar  stand  there. 

Q.  You  were  quite  intimate  with  him? — A.  I  was  not;  no,  sir; 
lever. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  committee  you  were  not  intimate  with  Mr. 
White? — A.  I  was  never  intimate  with  Mr.  White. 

Q.  Weren’t  you  surprised  when  Charley  White  unfolded  all  his 
personal  crookedness  and  his  personal  corruptness  to  you? — A.  He 
nsisted  on  talking  about  it ;  I  wasn’t. 

Q.  You  were  not  surprised  when  he  told  you  at  all.  Mr.  White 
old  you  at  the  cigar  counter  about  all  these  things?— A.  Well,  he 
lad  talked  about  it.  He  would  talk  to  anyone  that  would  talk  to 
lim. 

Q.  You  have  talked  to  a  number  of  people  about  this? — A.  He  had 
alked  about  such  things  in  the  barroom  of  the  hotel. 

Q.  And  were  you  there? — A.  No;  I  wasn’t.  I  heard  men  speaking 
bout  it. 

Q.  It  was  a  matter  of  public  comment,  was  it? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was, 

Q.  That  White  was  going  to  get  Lorimer,  and  White  was  going  to 
^et  Reddenburg,  and  White  was  going  to  hold  some  one  up;  is  that 
correct? — A.  I  don’t  know  as  any  names  were  mentioned,  but  about 
vThat  he  was  going  to  do. 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 34 


530  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  White  had  spent  two  thousand  or  three  thousand  on  his  lak< 
trips? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  he  had  spent  several  thousand  dollars  on  his  history  ?- 

A.  Yes,  sir.  e 

Q.  And  he  was  going  to  make  some  one  pay  for  it? — A.'  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  a  matter  of  public  talk? — A.  Yes;  around  East  St 
Louis ;  yes. 

Q.  So  when  he  told  it  to  you,  you  were  not  surprised?  And  imme 
diately  after  you  heard  it  from" him  you  heard  it  from  others? — A 
Yes,  sir,  I  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Who  is  Mr.  Singer  that  you  say  you  first  told  thi; 
to,  Miss  Woods? — A.  He  is  the  editor  of  the  East  St,  Louis  paper. 

Q.  He  is  a  newspaper  man? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  publish  that  story  in  his  paper  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  All  right,  I  don't  care  about  it;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Miss  Woods,  I  forgot  to  ask  you  a  question.  Die 
you  meet  Mr.  P.  H.  O’Donnell  at  your  home  town? — A.  Yes,  sir;  i 
did,  at  the  hotel. 

Q.  How  many  times? — A.  Twice. 

Q.  And  he  came  down  and  talked  to  you  about  this  matter,  die 
he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  other  people  came  down  and  talked  to  you  about  it? — A 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  discussed  it  in  Mr.  Flannigan’s  office,  didn’t  you  ? — A 
We  went  to  Mr.  Flannigan’s  office. 

Q.  And  a  number  of  lawyers  were  down  there  looking  up  witnesse: 
and  evidence,  weren’t  they? — A.  No;  there  wasn’t.  I  met  a  Mr.  For 
rest  and  Mr.  O'Donnell. 

Q.  The  two  lawyers  from  Chicago;  and  Mr.  Flannigan  spoke  t< 
you  about  it  in  your  home  town  ? — A.  We  talked  it  over  in  the  hotel 

Q.  Mr.  Flannigan  talked  it  over  with  you? — A.  I  think  so;  ain 
Mr.  O’Donnell  was  there  during  a  part  of  the  time. 

Q.  And  a  number  of  other  people  did  some  talking  with  yoi 
there? — A.  Just  those  three. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  by  the  way,  you  were  in  attendance  all  morn 
ing  here,  were  you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  in  the  witness  room  all  morning,  were  you? — A.  Yes 
sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Gentlemen,  will  you  want  anything  further  witl 
this  witness? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  want  this  witness  any  further. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  be  excused. 

Judge  Hanecy.  William  Stermer. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  Mr.  William  Stermer. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  531 

William  H.  Stermer,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first 
Inly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Judge 
Hanecy  and  testified  as  follows : 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name,  Mr.  Stermer  ? — A.  W.  H.  Stermer. 

Q.  It  is  William  H.,  is  it? — A.  William  H, 

Q.  What  is  your  business  or  occupation? — A.  Assistant  manager 
)f  the  Briggs  Hotel  Company. 

Q.  In  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  A.  White? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  Do  you  know  Mr.  Fred  Zentner? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  A  traveling  salesman? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  them  on  the  19th  of  August,  1909? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  I  object  to  putting  every  date  and  every  con¬ 
versation  in  the  witness’s  mouth.  When  did  you  meet  him  in  August 
)r  in  the  summer  of  1909? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  put  the  impeaching  question,  then.  On 
>r  about  the  19th  of  August,  1909,  in  your  presence,  and  in  the 
iresence  of  Fred  Zentner,  a  traveling  salesman,  in  the  bar  or  buffet 
)f  the  Briggs  House,  did  Charles  A.  White  say  in  substance  that 
ie  was  going  to  take  a  trip  in  the  fall  and  winter;  that  he  was 
g)ing  to  his  home  at  O’Fallon,  and  then  down  to  New  Orleans,  then 
:o  Cuba,  and  up  to  New  York,  and  that  he  was  going  to  have  a  big 
ime  in  New  York,  and  then  come  back  home  again? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  same  conversation  did  either  you  or  Mr.  Zentner  say  to 
lim  “  You  must  have  a  lot  of  money  to  spend  for  anything  like 
hat?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  in  reply  did  White  then  say,  “No;  I  have  not  a  lot  of 
noney,  but  I  am  going  to  get  it,  and  I  am  going  to  get  it  without 
working?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  did  Mr.  Zentner  ask  how  he  was  going  to  do  that  ?— 
L  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  White  then  say,  “  Well,  that  Lorimer  crowd  and  our 
)ld  pal  Browne,  too,  have  got  to  4  come  across  ’  good  and  hard  when 
l  say  the  word,  and  I  am  going  to  say  it?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  then  say  to  White,  “  Have  you  got  anything  on 
hem  ?  ” — A.  Mr.  Zentner  said  that. 

Q.  Mr.  Zentner  said  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  your  presence  on  that  occasion? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  did  White  say,  “No;  I  ain’t.  I  got  the  worst  of  it 
lown  there  in  Springfield,  but  that  makes  no  difference.”  “  I  voted  for 
Airimer,  and  I  am  a  Democrat,  and  I  can  say  I  got  money  for  voting 
or  Lorimer.  Do  you  suppose  they  can  stand  for  it  a  moment  ?  I 
^ness  they  will  cough  off  when  I  say  the  word  to  them.” — A.  In  sub- 
lance  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  did  you  say  to  White  or  did  Zentner  say  to  White, 

;  God,  you  would  not  treat  Browne  that  way,  would  you  ?  ” — A.  Mr. 
'entner  asked  him  that. 

Q.  And  did  White  then  say,  “  I  am  looking  out  for  White,  and 
>esides  Browne  would  not  have  to  pay.  That  bunch  behind  him 
vould  have  to,  and  it  would  not  hurt  him?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir;  in  sub- 
tance;  yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 


532  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Mr.  Stermer,  you  know  Browne  very  intimately  ? — A.  I  know 

him  for  about  eight  years. 

Q.  Will  you  kindly  address  the  chairman? 

The  Wi  tness.  Oh,  pardon  me. 

Q.  And  Browne  is  around  the  Briggs  House  a  great  deal.  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  lives  there  now  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  ... 

Q.  And  lived  there  all  through,  practically,  all  of  this  year,  hasnt 

he,  since  May  of  this  year? — A.  \es,  sir. 

Q.  I)o  you  remember  the  trips  that  Browne  and  White  took  after 
the  legislature  adjourned  in  1909 ?-^A.  What  trips,  please? 

Q.  Well,  do  you  know  of  any  trips  they  together  took?— A.  I 

know  they  took  trips  across  the  lake.  . 

Q.  And  then  Browne  and  White  remained  here  at  the  Briggs 

House,  didn’t  they? — A.  Yes,  sir.  #  ..  . 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Mr.  White  ? — A.  I  met  him  in 

July,  1909.  .  . 

Q.  And  this  conversation  was  in  October,  1909,  was  it,  or  Au- 

gust? — A.  August. 

Q.  On  the  19th  day  of  August?— A.  Yes,  sir. 
q  1909  ? _ A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  four  or  five  weeks  after  you  first  met  him?— A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  He  unfolded  to  you  what  he  was  going  to  do,  did  he  ?— A.  \  es, 

sir. 

Q.  How  soon  after  that— he  had  just  left  Mr.  Browne,  hadn’t  he, 

shortly  before  ? — A.  You  mean  at  that  day  ? 

Q,  No ;  shortly  before  that  day  ?— A.  They  came  back  on  the  boat 

that  morning.  .  n 

Q.  They  had  been  out  on  this  trip?— A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  And  they  had  come  to  the  hotel  together,  is  that  right  ?— A. 
They  came  back  to  the  hotel ;  I  wasn't  right  there  when  they  came 

back,  but  they  came  back.  n  ,, 

Q.  That  was  one  of  the  frequent  trips  they  had  taken  across  the 

lake?_A.  That  was  one  of  the  trips  during  that  week;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Browne  when  he  got  back  that  morning?— A. 
I  don’t  remember  that  I  saw  him  that  morning;  I  saw  him  that 
day,  and  I  saw  him  that  evening. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Browne  sober  or  otherwise? — A.  He  was  sober  when 

I  saw  him.  .  n  .  .  . 

Q.  Was  Mr.  White  sober  or  otherwise? — A.  He  was  drunk. 

Q.  Then  he  made  these  threats  while  he  was  intoxicated,  did 

he?— A.  Yes,  sir.  i  x  .  ,  ,, 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  him  make  any  such  threats  before  or  after¬ 
wards?— A.  No;  I  never  did. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Browne  about  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Never  repeated  them  at  all,  did  you? — A.  Not  at  that  time;  no 

sir. 

Q.  You  never  told  anyone  about  it  until  after  May,  did  you,  ol 
this  year? — A.  Mr.  Zentner  and  I  spoke  of  it  the  next  day. 

Q.  Did  you  and  Zentner  then  conclude  you  ought  to  tell  some  on( 
about  it? — A.  Mr.  Zentner  said  to,  but  I  said  not  to. 

Q.  Mr.  Zentner  wanted  to  tell  some  one,  and  you  didn  t  want  to 
is  that  correct  ? — A.  That  is  the  way  it  was,  yes. 


INVESTIGATION-  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  533 

Q.  And  then  no  one  did  speak  of  it  to  anyone  until  after  the  30th 
f  April  of  this  year,  that  is  correct  ? — A.  That  is  correct. 

Q.  And  then  who  did  you  tell  about  it  ? — A.  I  told  Mr.  Browme. 

Q.  You  told  Mr.  Browne  after  Mr.  Browne  was  indicted  here,  did 
ou  not,  or  immediately  before  his  indictment,  after  the  publication 
f  this  letter  or  confession? — A.  I  told  Mr.  Browne  on  the  1st  day 
f  May. 

Q.  1910? — A.  Yes;  the  1st  day  of  May,  1910,  Sunday. 

Q.  Then  did  Mr.  Browne  take  you  over  to  his  lawyers,  or  did  his 
iwyers  go  to  you  about  it? — A.  Not  at  that  time. 

Q.  And  how  soon  afterwards? — A.  About  three  weeks. 

Q.  Nothing  took  place  for  about  three  weeks,  with  reference  to 
our  story? — A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  reduce  it  to  writing  then?  Was  it  reduced  to  writ- 
ng? — A.  I  told  Mr.  Browne  about  it  that  Sunday,  and  also  told  him 
bout  it  again. 

Q.  Was  it  reduced  to  writing? — A.  It  was  reduced  to  writing. 

Q.  Yes.'  And  was  handed  to  the  attorneys? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  correct? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  undertook  to  give  the  conversation  that  you  had  with 
Ir.  White,  did  you  not  ? — A.  I  gave  him  the  conversation  as  near  as 
could,  as  I  heard  it. 

Q.  Will  you  just  repeat  it  to  the  committee,  please?  Now,  you 
ave  testified  to  this  conversation  twice,  haven’t  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  this  is  the  third  time  you  have  testified,  is  that  correct? — 
l.  Yes;  I  did. 

Q.  To  this  conversation? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  just  repeat  the  conversation  once  more? — A.  He  said 
e  was  going  to  take  a  big  trip  in  the  fall  and  winter;  that  first  he 
as  going  home,  to  his  home  in  O'Fallon,  and  from  there  he  was 
oing  to  New  Orleans,  from  New  Orleans  to  Cuba,  from  Cuba  to 
ew  York  City,  where  he  expected  to  have  a  big  time,  and  then  he 
rould  come  back  home  again.  One  of  us  asked  him,  or  said  to  him, 
ither,  that  he  must  have  a  lot  of  money  to  take  a  trip  of  that  kind, 
re  said  that  he  didn't  have  the  money,  but  he  was  going  to  get  it, 
nd  he  said  he  was  going  to  get  it  without  working  for  it,  too.  Mr. 
entner  asked  him  how  he  was  going  to  do  that.  Well,  he  says: 
That  Lorimer  crowTd  and  our  old  friend,  Browne,  has  got  to  4  come 
cross  ’  good  and  strong  with  me  when  I  say  the  word,  and  I  am  going 
)  say  it,  too.”  Mr.  Zenter  asked  him  if  he  had  anything  on  him,  or 
lem,  rather.  He  says,  “  No,  he  hadn’t.”  lie  said  he  got  the  worst 
f  it  at  Springfield,  but  that  didn’t  make  no  difference,  he  was  a 
democrat,  and  had  voted  for  Lorimer,  and  he  could  say  that  lie  got 
mney  for  it.  He  said:  “Do  you  think  they  could  stand  for  that 
ame?”  Mr.  Zentner  said:  “My  God,  you  wouldn’t  treat  Browne 
lat  way,  would  you?”  “Well,”  he  said,  “I  am  looking  out  for 
/hite,  and  besides,”  he  said,  “Browne  wouldn’t  have  to  pay;  the 
unch  back  of  him  would  have  to  do  that;  it  wouldn’t  hurt  Browne.” 
hat  is  about  all  that  was  said  at  that  time. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  look  at  what  purports  to  be  your  testimony,  in 
■ply  to  this  same  question,  at  the  last  trial  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne, 
nd  ask  you  whether  or  not  that  is  correct,  and  if  it  is,  I  will  ask  you 
>  read  it  into  the  record. 

The  Witness.  Do  you  want  all  of  this? 


534  INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Is  that  correct? 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  he  wants  to  know  if  he  will  read  it 
through. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  it  through.  That  is  your  testimony  on  this 
point,  this  exact  conversation.  Was  that  your  testimony  in  reply  to 
this  same  question? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  offer  it  in  evidence. 

The  Witness.  As  near  as  I  can  tell;  there  may  have  been  one  or 
two  words  different,  as  I  think  at  this  time.  Does  that  make  any 
difference?  In  substance  it  is  the  same. 

Q.  Other  than  one  or  two  words,  your  testimony  here  is  exactly 
the  same  as  it  was  on  the  first  and  second  trial  of  Lee  O’Neil  Browne, 
is  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  offer  this  in  evidence.  It  is  the  answer 
to  this  same  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  Given  on  the  Browne  trial? 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is,  verbatim  et  literatim,  the  same. 

Senator  Gamble.  Is  it  for  the  purpose  of  impeachment? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  ;  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  having  whoever  passes 
upon  it  to  draw  the  conclusion  whether  the  mind  of  man  has  been 
constructed  so  that  he  can  detail  the  same  conversation  after  a  period 
of  six  months. 

Judge  IXanecy.  He  has  done  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  know ;  but  I  want  them  to  say  whether  he  can  do 
it  or  not ;  that  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anything  further? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  need  the  witness  any  more? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  need  the  witness  any  more? 

Judge  ITanecy.  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  just  one  minute. 

Q.  Is  there  any  explanation  you  want  to  make  in  connection  with 
Mr.  Austrian’s  question? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q,  You  said  it  the  same  on  the  other  occasions  as  you  have  here? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  now.  What  the  witness  said  is  in  the 
record,  and  it  is  not  for  him  to  determine  whether  or  not  it  is  the 
same. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  the  committee  understood  that  he  said 
there  was  some  mistake  in  one  or  two  words. 

The  Witness.  The  only  question,  in  my  mind  is  whether  one  or 
two  words  would  make  any  difference  in  my  testimony. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  are  those  words? 

The  Witness.  In  substance,  it  is  the  same. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Point  out  what  words  are  different, — A.  There 
may  have  been  one  or  two  words  I  said  this  time  I  didn’t  say  before. 

Q,  Can  you  tell  us  what  the  words  are  ? — A.  I  don’t  know  exactly 
what  I  said  before,  and  I  don’t  know  exactly  what  I  said  now.  • . 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Stermer,  one  moment.  I  believe  you  said 
Mr.  White  was  drunk  on  this  occasion  that  you  had  the  conversa¬ 
tion.  Is  that  correct? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  it  occur  in  the  bar? — A.  They  were  drinking  before  I 
went  into  the  barroom.  I  joined  them  at  11  o’clock. 

Q.  At  night  or  morning? — A.  At  11  o’clock  at  night. 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  535 

Q.  And  they  had  been  drinking  in  there  before? — A.  All  day,  ap¬ 
parently. 

Q.  Who  had? — A.  Mr.  Zentner  and  Mr.  White. 

Q.  Mr.  Zentner  and  Mr.  White.  Were  they  both  considerably 
intoxicated  at  the  time? — A.  Yes,  sir;  early  in  the  evening  they  were, 
even. 

Q.  Early  in  the  evening  they  were  both  pretty  drunk? — A.  Yes; 
and  this  was  later,  11  o’clock. 

Q.  At  11  o’clock  were  they  both  very  drunk,  or  not? — A.  Zentner 
didn’t  seem  to  be  very  drunk.  He  was  apparently  taking  care  of 
White  in  a  way. 

Q.  Was  White  very  drunk? — A.  I  should  say  he  was;  I  should 
consider  him  drunk. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  when  had  Mr.  Browne  left  this  jolly  party? — 
A.  I  didn’t  see  Mr.  Browne  with  them  that  day.  They  came  back 
from  the  boat  in  the  morning. 

Q.  Mr.  Zentner  was  with  Browne  and  'White  on  the  trip  that 
morning? — A.  Oh,  yes. 

Q.  White  and  Browne  were  around  your  hotel  a  good  deal,  weren't 
they,  during  that  summer,  from  May,  June,  July,  and  August? — A. 
July  and  August;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne  was  at  the  Briggs  House  on  the  15th,  16th,  and  17th 
of  June,  1909,  wasn’t  he? — A.  Well,  now,  I  don't  know.  He  was 
there  a  good  many  times;  I  don't  know  the  date. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  testify  on  a  prior  trial,  in  this  way,  that  Mr.  Browne 
was  there  on  the  16th  and  17th  of  June,  1909,  the  second  and  first 
Browne  trial? — A.  I  could  tell  by  looking  at  our  transfer  book.  I 
don’t  know  whether  I  testified  to  that  or  not;  if  I  did,  I  looked  at 
the  book,  or  somebody  showed  it  to  me,  or  something. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  whether  you  ever  looked  at  the  transfer  book 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  when  Mr.  Browne  was  in  Chicago  in 
June,  1909? — A.  I  think  Mr.  Arnold  and  I  looked  it  up  at  one  time. 

Q.  You  can  not  tell  this  committee  whether  Mr.  Browne  was  at 
the  Briggs  House,  registered  at  the  Briggs  House,  on  June  16,  17, 
and  18,  1909,  can  you? — A.  I  think  that  is  the  date,  the  15th,  the  date 
that  he  arrived  there. 

Q.  The  15th? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  remain  there? — A.  Mr.  Arnold  asked  me,  if 
I  may  explain  this,  to  find  out,  to  look  at  the  book,  to  show  him, 
when  I  took  the  book  to  the  office  there. 

Q.  You  can  not  tell  us  how  many? — A.  I  can  not  tell  you. 

Q.  Did  you  look  at  it  for  Mr.  Arnold? — A.  I  showed  him  the 
date  he  arrived. 

Q.  Did  you  look  to  see  how  long  he  remained? — A.  I  think  two  or 
three  days;  I  can’t  say. 

Q.  I  asked  you  if  you  looked  it  up  for  Mr.  Arnold  to  ascertain 
how  long  Mr.  Browne  remained  at  the  Briggs  House  from  June  15 
on? — A.  Our  system  is  in  the  dates;  June  15  would  be  6-15,  then 
it  would  be  checked  off  opposite  that,  the  date  he  left.  I  am  not 
sure,  6-21,  or  something. 

Q.  You  are  not  sure,  and  still  you  looked  that  up  for  Mr.  Arnold 
in  1910,  didn’t  you,  after  the  1st  of  May,  1910? — A.  Tie  asked  me 
to  tell  him  when  he  came,  and  he  looked  and  saw  it  on  the  book  there, 
and  he  had  the  book  in  his  hand. 


536  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  He  asked  you  how  long  lie  remained? — A.  No;  I  don't  think  he 
asked  me  that. 

Q.  You  don’t  think  so? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  he  didn’t  ask  you  that? — A.  This  was  up  in  Mr. 
Arnold's  office, 

Q.  I  know  that. — A.  I  don’t  know  that  he  did ;  he  may  have. 

Q.  You  can  not  tell  us  now  how  long  Mr.  Browne  remained  at 
the  Briggs  House,  in  the  month  of  June,  1909? — A.  I  wouldn’t  want 
to  swear  to  it,  Mr. - 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  Mr.  White  said  that  Mr.  Browne  paid  him 
the  money  in  the  Briggs  House  on  the  15th  of  June,  1909;  don’t 
you  ? — A.  I  heard  that  he  said  that. 

Q.  You  read  it,  and  heard  it  testified  to,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  still  you  can  not  tell  this  committee  how  long  after  the 
15th  of  June,  1909.  that  Mr.  Browne  remained  there;  is  that  cor¬ 
rect? — A.  Under  oath,  I  would  say - - 

Q.  You  are  under  oath  all  the  time.  A.  Well,  I  understand;  but 
I  don't  want  to  say — I  wouldn't  say  under  oath  that  I  could  say. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  it  was  the  19th  of  August,  1909,  when  you 
had  this  conversation  with  Mr.  White? — A.  For  the  fact  of  the 
matter  that  I  was  working  for  one  of  the  clerks;  he  was  on  his  vaca¬ 
tion  during  August.  I  didn't  know  what  date  it  was,  and  I  asked 
Mr.  Zentner  if  he  knew  what  date  it  was,  and  he  said  he  did  know 
because  he  had  a  ticket  of  a  berth  that  they  went  over  on  the  boat, 
and  that  wms  dated  August  the  17th,  and  they  came  back  on  the  19th, 
and  that  was  the  only  way  I  had. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  vmy  you  knew? — A.  The  date:  ves. 

Q.  And  that  is  what  you  base  it  on;  he  had  a  ticket  to  go  across 
the  lake  ? — A.  Going  over ;  yes. 

Q.  And  you  asked  him  that  in  May  of  this  year,  1910,  is  that 
correct? — A.  Let  me  see,  that  was  in  May;  yes. 

Q.  Of  this  year? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  and  Mr.  Zentner  had  never  discussed  the  date  of  this 
conversation,  from  the  time  it  happened  up  until  after  May,  1910; 
is  that  correct? — A.  From  that  time  up  until  May;  yes,  sir/ 

Q.  And  still  you  are  willing  to  testify  to  this  committee  that  that 
conversation,  if  one  occurred,  occurred  on  the  19th  of  August,  1909, 
are  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Stermer,  members  of  the  legislature,  and  peo¬ 
ple  from  down  in  southern  and  south  central  Illinois,  in  considerable 
numbers,  stopped  at  the  Briggs  House,  didn’t  they,  and  have  been 
doing  that  for  some  years  past  ? — A.  I  can’t  say  very  many ;  no.  No, 

not  very  many. 

«  »/ 

Q.  Well,  do  many  members  of  the  legislature  stop  there? — A.  Mr. 
Browme  and  Mr.  White  were  the  only  two  there  last  summer  that  I 
know  of. 

Q.  You  were  asked  if  Mr.  Browme  was  drunk.  Was  Mr.  Browne 
drunk  or  drinking? — A.  He  was  drinking,  though  at  that  time  he 
w’as  not  drinking  that  night. 

Q.  And  you  didn’t  see  him  drinking  at  all? — A.  I  didn’t  see  him 
drinking  that  night  at  all;  I  saw  him  in  the  lobby,  but  not  in  the 
barroom  of  the  hotel. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  53? 


Q.  W  as  Mr.  White  so  drunk  he  was  not  able  to  talk  or  move 
tround  or  take  care  of  himself? — A.  Well,  he  was  a  little  quarrel¬ 
some  at  first,  and  he  was  talkative. 

Q.  Yes;  it  is  evident.  But  was  he  able  to  take  care  of  himself? 
Yas  he  so  drunk  that  he  could  not  take  care  of  himself? — A.  I  think 
le  could  have  taken  care  of  himself.  Mr.  Zentner  was  right  along 
vith  him  all  of  the  time ;  I  don’t  know  as  he  had  to  be. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  that  is  all. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  W  as  Mr.  Browne  a  drinking  man? — A.  He  is  not  a  drinking 
nan;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne  is  not  a  drinking  man? — A.  I  wouldn’t  call  Mr. 
3rowne  a  drinking  man.  I  have  seen  him  drink  on  a  few  occasions. 
>ut  I  would  not  call  him  a  drinking  man. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

(Exhibit  I — W.  K.  F.  L.  10/5/10  is  in  the  words  and  figures 
ollowing,  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  1-W.  K.  F.  L.  10/5/10.] 

From  the  testimony  of  W.  H.  Stermer,  page  1411,  volume  3,  testimony  in  People  v. 

Browne.] 

Q.  At  that  time  and  place  and  in  that  conversation  did  Charles  A.  White  say 
lis,  or  this  in  substance:  That  he  was  going  to  take  a  big  trip  in  the  fall 
nd  winter;  that  he  was  going  to  his  home  at  O’Fallon,  then  down  to  New 
•rleans,  then  to  Cuba,  and  up  to  New  York;  that  he  was  going  to  have  a  big 
me  in  New  York  and  then  go  back  home  again ;  and  then  did  either  yourself 
r  Zentner  say  to  White :  “  You  must  have  a  lot  of  money  to  spend  for  any- 
tiing  like  that?”  Did  White  then  say:  No,  that  he  did  not  have  a  lot  of 
loney,  but  that  he  was  going  to  get,  and  was  going  to  get  it  without  working; 
nd  then  did  Mr.  Zentner  ask  White  how  he  was  going  to  do  that,  and  did 
►’kite  then  say:  “Well,  that  Lorimer  crowd  and  our  old  pal  Browne,  too, 
ave  got  to  come  across  good  and  hard  when  I  say  the  word,  and  I  am  going 
)  say  it?”  And  then  did  you  say  to  White:  “Have  you  got  anything  on 
im?”  And  did  White  say:  “No;  I  ain’t.  I  got  the  worst  of  it  down  there 
i  Springfield,  bht  that  makes  no  difference.  I  voted  for  Lorimer,  and  I  am  a 
•emocrat,  and  I  can  say  that  I  got  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer.  Do  you  sup- 
ose  they  could  stand  for  that  game?  I  guess  they  will  cough  up  when  I  say 
le  word  to  them.”  And  then  did  you  say  to  White  or  did  Zentner  say  to  White  : 
God. you  would  not  treat  Browne  that  way, would  you?”  and  did  White  say: 
I  am  looking  out  for  White,  and  besides,  Browne  would  not  have  to  pay. 
hat  bunch  behind  him  would  pay  that,  and  it  would  not  hurt  Browne.”  Did 
rnt  conversation,  or  that  in  substance,  occur  at  that  time  and  place? — A.  In 
lbstance;  yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  Will  yon  need  the  witness  further? 
Mr.  Austrian.  No;  he  is  in  the  city,  anyway. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  do  not  desire  him.  Mr.  Zentner. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  Mr.  Zentner. 

Fred  Zentner,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly 
worn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Mr.  Hanecy, 
nd  testified  as  follows: 

Q.  Mr.  Zentner,  what  is  your  full  name? — A.  Fred  Zentner. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  or  occupation? — A.  Traveling  man. 

Q.  Salesman? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  line  of  goods? — A.  I  have  been  selling  corset  line. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Stermer,  who  just  left  the  witness  stand? — A. 
es,  sir. 


538  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Charles  A.  White,  who  was  a  member  of  th< 
last  legislature? — A.  I  do. 

Q.  When  you  are  in  Chicago,  where  do  you  live? — A.  At  th< 
Briggs  House. 

Q.  Were  you  on  the  19th  day  of  August,  1909,  present  at  a  conver 
sation  in  the  bar  or  buffet  of  the  Briggs  House,  in  which  Charles  A 
White,  William  Stermer,  and  you  participated? — A.  I  was. 

Q.  In  that  conversation,  did  Cha.rles  A.  White,  in  the  presence  o 
William  Stermer  and  yourself,  say  that  he,  White,  was  going  to  tak 
a  big  trip  in  the  fall  and  winter;  that  he  was  going  to  his  home  ii 
O’Fallon,  then  to  New  Orleans,  then  to  Cuba,  and  then  up  to  Nev 
York,  and  that  he  was  going  to  have  a  large  time  in  New  York,  anc 
then  he  was  coming  home  again  ? — A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  you  or  Mr.  Stermer,  in  that  conversation,  say  to  Mr.  Whit* 
in  reply,  “  You  must  have  a  lot  of  money  to  take  a  trip  like  that? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  White  then  say,  “  I  don’t  have  to  have  a  lot  of  money 
but  I  am  going  to  get  it,  and  I  am  going  to  get  it  without  work? 

A.  In  substance,  yes. 

Q.  And  did  you  say  to  Mr.  White,  “  What  do  you  mean  ?  ” — A.  ' 
did. 

Q.  And  did  Mr.  White  then  say,  “  That  Lorimer  bunch  and  Brown* 
have  got  to  ‘come  across’?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  Mr.  White  then  say,  “  I  got  the  worst  of  it  at  Spring 
field ;  I  voted  for  Lorimer,  and  I  am  a  Democrat,  and  if  I  say  I  go 
money  for  voting  for  him,  I  guess  they  will  4  come  over,’  won’ 
they?  ” — A.  In  substance;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  then  say  at  that  time  and  place,  “  My  God,  White 
you  wouldn’t  do  that  to  Browne,  would  you?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  Mr.  White  then  say,  in  response  to  that,  “  I  am  look 
ing  out  for  White,  and  besides  Browne  wouldn’t  have  to  stand  fo: 
it  ?  ” — A.  In  substance ;  yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Cross-examination  bv  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  You  testified  to  that  exact  conversation  on  two  prior  occasions 
did  you  not? — A.  At  the  Browne  trial;  yes. 

Q.  Both  the  Browne  trials? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  testify  on  the  first  trial? — A.  The  date  of  th 
testimony  ? 

Q.  Yes.  A.  I  don’t  know  just  the  exact  date. 

Q.  What  was  the  month  ?  Look  at  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
please.  What  was  the  month? — A.  Well,  I  came  up  here  from  Okla 
homa,  two  trials - 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  what  month. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  he  is  telling  you,  I  suppose. 

The  Witness.  Just  a  minute,  and  I  will  give  you  the  date. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  is  trying  to  fix  the  date. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  he  says,  “  I  came  up  from  Oklahoma.” 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  I  suppose,  he  is  trying  to  fix  the  date  ii 
that  way. 

The  Witness.  I  came  up  from  Oklahoma  in  May. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  The  27th,  I  think  it  was,  and  I  was  on  the  stand  abou 
two  weeks  after  that,  I  should  think. 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  539 

Q.  Then  you  were  testifying  in  the  Browne  trial  for  the  first  time, 
n  the  month  of  June? — A.  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  1910? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  the  second  trial? — A.  I  came  up  from  Oklahoma  at  that 
ime — from  Oklahoma  City.  I  left  there  the  latter  part  of  July  and 
[  testified ;  I  might  have  been  here - 

Senator  Burroavs.  A  little  louder,  witness. 

A.  I  might  have  been  here  a  Aveek  or  two. 

Q.  Then  Avhen  did  you  testify  the  second  time? — A.  In  August. 

Q.  The  first  time  you  testified  Avas  in  June,  and  the  second  time 
on  testified  Avas  in  August,  is  that  right? — A.  I  think  it  Avas,  yes. 

Q.  Then  will  you  tell  this  committee  this  occurrence  took  place  in 
August,  1909,  is  that  correct? — A.  Yes,  it  did. 

Q.  Where  had  you  been  immediately  prior  to  this  occurrence? — 
Y  On  a  lake  trip. 

Q.  With  Avhom  ? — A.  Brown  and  White  and  myself. 

Q.  Hoav  long  had  you  been  on  those  excursions? — A.  There  were 
wo  trips.  "We  were  on  one  trip  one  day,  and  the  other  trip  Ave  were 
'one  tAvo  nights  and  one  day. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  And  then  you  got  back?  You  were  not  on  the  third 
rip  they  made? — A.  They  made  a  trip,  one  trip,  Mr.  Browne  and 
vlr.  White  Avent  alone,  I  did  not  go  with  them.  There  Avas  a  trip  in 
letAveen. 

Q.  And  you  made  two  trips  with  them? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  you  came  back  to  Chicago  and  went  to  the  Briggs 
louse? — A.  After  we  got  back.  I  don’t  know  whether  Ave  Avent 
•ight  to  the  hotel,  but  we  Avere  there  that  night. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  go  there  in  the  morning? — A.  We  came  up  to  the 
lotel,  yes,  but  I  don’t  know  Avhether  we  went  right  up  to  the  hotel 
>r  not. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  before  you  went  to  the  hotel? — A.  I  am  not 
;ertain,  Avhether  Ave  went  to  the  hotel  or  Avhether  Ave  Avent  anywhere 
•ight  from  the  boat.  I  don't  know  whether  Ave  went  right  from  the 
)oat  or  not. 

Q.  You  can  not  recall  where  you  Avent  from  the  boat,  when  you 
'ot  back  from  making  these  trips  across  the  lake  on  the  19th  day 
>f  August? — A.  Not  very  Avell,  because  Mr.  White  and  I  walked  up 
own.  I  don’t  knoAv  whether  Ave  went  to  the  hotel  before  we  went  up. 
Te  wanted  to  buy  a  couple  of  neckties,  and  I  don't  knoAv  whether 
ve  went  to  the  hotel  first  or  Avent  to  the  store. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  White  drunk  when  he  landed  in  Chicago? — A.  No, 
’  don’t  think  he  Avas. 

Q.  Had  he  been  drinking? — A.  Yes,  a  little  bit. 

Q.  Had  you  been  drinking? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  Mr.  BroAvne  been  drinking? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  got  to  the  hotel.  Will  you  tell  this  committee  what 
ime  you  got  to  the  hotel? — A.  It  Avas  in  the  morning. 

Q.  Who  got  to  the  hotel? — A.  We  went  to  the  hotel;  I  don’t  know 
vhether  Mr.  BroAvne  Avent  up  with  us  or  got  in  a  cab  or  not,  I  am 
lot  sure. 

Q.  You  don’t  knoAv  whether  you  rode  up  or  walked  up  or  went 
ip  in  a  cab,  or  BroAvne  was  with  you,  or  Browne  Avas  not  with  you? — 
V.  I  think  Ave  walked  over  to  the  hotel,  and  Browne  was  with  us  that 
lay  until  noon,  I  know. 


540  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  He  was? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  the  hotel  did  you  drink  any? — A.  Well,  Mr. 
White  and  I  left  Mr.  Browne  then ;  Mr.  White  and  I  drank ;  yes. 

Q.  Mr.  White  and  you  drank.  Where  did  Mr.  Browne  go? — A.  I 
don’t  know  where  he  went. 

Q.  When  did  Mr.  Browne  come  back? — A.  I  met  him  in  the  hotel 
that  evening. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Browne  then  join  you? — A.  No,  sir;  he  did  not. 

Q.  He  went  up  to  his  room?— A.  I  don’t  know  where  he  went. 

Q.  And  then  you  had  this  conversation,  did  you,  that  evening 
later? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  White  drunk? — A.  Well,  he  had  been  drinking;  yes. 
he  was  drunk. 

Q.  He  was  quite  drunk,  wasn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  taking  care  of  him,  weren’t  you? — A.  No;  I  wasn’t 
taking  care  of  him ;  I  was  with  him. 

Q.  Was  he  taking  care  of  himself? — A.  I  don’t  know  what  you 
mean  bv  that. 

Q,  Well,  was  he  capable  of  taking  care  of  himself?  You  have  seen 
drunken  men? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  know  whether  a  man,  in  your  judgment,  is  capable  oi 
taking  care  of  himself  when  he  was  drunk,  don’t  you? — A.  I  was 
around  with  Mr.  White,  and  I  knew  he  was  drunk,  and  I  wasn’t 
going  to  see  him  get  in  trouble. 

Q.  You  were  looking  after  him? — A.  In  a  way,  yes.  I  wasn’t 
there  for  that  purpose. 

Q.  On  that  trip  Mr.  Browne  bought  you  the  shoes — on  this  trip 
you  are  talking  about? — A.  No;  he  didn’t  buy  me  any  shoes  on  am 
trip. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne  never  did  buy  you  shoes? — A.  Yes;  he  did,  blit 
not  on  any  trip. 

Q.  Well,  before  taking  a  trip. — A.  During  that  month  some  time 

Q.  You  had  not  met  Mr.  White  before  this  occurrence  that  you 
have  detailed  here,  had  you? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  had. 

Q.  How  long  prior  to  that  ? — A.  Along  the  latter  part  of  July  oi 
the  first  part  of  August. 

Q.  Then  your  acquaintance  with  him  was  about  two  or  three  weeks 
at  the  most,  was  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was. 

Q.  He  unfolded  this  tale  to  you  about  getting  Browne  and  getting 
Mr.  Lorimer  and  making  a  trip  around  the  world  and  making  them 
“  come  across.”  That  was  all  unfolded  to  you  on  this  occasion,  was 
it? — A.  It  was  that  evening,  yes,  that  we  came  back  from  the  lake 
trip. 

Q.  You  were  very  friendly  to  Mr.  Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  had  met  Mr.  Browne  and  known  Mr.  Browne  for  a  long 
time? — A.  I  knew  Mr.  Browne  about  a  little  over  two  years,  but  in 
a  friendly  way,  until  that  trip. 

Q.  But  you  knew  he  wTas  very  close  to  Mr.  Zentner? — A.  How  dc 
you  mean? 

Q.  Mr.  Stermer — you  knew  Mr.  Browne  was  a  very  good  friend 
of  Mr.  Stermer's? — A.  Well,  he  was  a  guest  of  the  hotel  there. 

Q.  Did  you  or  did  you  not  know  that  Mr.  Browne  was  a  friend  of 

Mr.  Stermer’s? — A.  I  knew  he  was  a  friend,  but  not  very  close.  No; 

I  couldn't  say  that. 

»/ 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  541 

Q.  And  you  were  a  roommate,  weren’t  you? — A.  Of  whom? 

Q.  Of  the  clerk  of  the  hotel? — A.  Not  at  that  time;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  you  have  been  since? — A.  Yes;  the  last  trip  in;  yes,  sir. 
Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  this  committee  exactly  that  conversation,  as 
>u  remember  it,  and  as  you  have  testified  to  it  on  the  two  Browne 
ials? — A.  The  entire  conversation? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  We  were  talking  about  this  trip  that  we  just 
•turned  from,  from  Michigan.  We  had  been  over  to  Michigan,  and 
ie  little  experiences,  numerous  experiences  that  happened  on  this 
ip,  we  were  relating  them  to  Mr.  Stermer,  and  Mr.  Browne  said, 
’  Mr.  White  said,  then,  he  was  going  to  take  a  trip  that  fall,  he  was 
hng  to  his  home  in  O'Fallon,  down  to  New  Orleans,  over  to  Cuba, 
id  up  to  New  York,  where  he  was  going  to  have  a  good  time,  and 
ien  he  was  going  home,  and  one  of  us  asked  him,  we  said,  “You 
mst  have  quite  a  lot  of  money  to  make  a  trip  like  that,  haven't 
>u.  Mr.  White?  ”  He  said,  “  No;  I  haven’t,  but  I  am  going  to  get 
,  and  I  am  going  to  get  it  without  working,  too.*’  1  asked  him 
ien,  I  said,  “ How  are  you  going  to  do  that?  ”  Well,  he  said,  “  You 
now  that  Lorimer  crowd  and  their  old  pal  Browne  will  have  to 
•oine  across  ’  when  I  say  the  word,  and  I  am  going  to  say  it,  too.” 
asked  him  then  what  he  meant;  I  sad,  “What  do  you  mean?” 
Well,”  he  said,  “  I  got  the  worst  of  it  down  at  Springfield-.  I  am  a 
•emocrat  and  I  voted  for  Lorimer  and  I  can  say  I  got  money  for  it, 
in’t  I?  Can  they  stand  for  that  kind  of  game?”  I  said,  “God, 
>u  wouldn't  treat  Browne  that  way?”  White  said,  “No;  I  am 
oking  out  for  White,  and  besides  Browne  wouldn’t  have  to  stand 
>r  it  anyway,  it  would  be  the  bunch  behind  him.”  And  that  was 
>out  all  the  conversation.  About  1  o’clock  they  closed  the  bar, 
romptly  at  1,  and  we  went  out  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  then  and 
ft  Mr.  Stermer. 

Q.  This  storv  that  vou  have — this  conversation,  when  wTas  it 
‘duced  to  writing,  if  you  know? — A.  I  don't  know  as  it  ever  has 
3en. 

Q.  Well,  hasn’t  it  been  ? — A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Haven’t  you  seen  it  written? — A.  I  saw  it  in  the  newspaper 
fter  we  went  on  the  .stand. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  ever  see  anyone  take  it  down  in  shorthand,  or  in 
•nghand,  and  read  it  over  to  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  never  has  been  reduced  to  writing,  so  far  as  you 
now  ? — A.  Not  so  far  as  I  know. 

Q.  And  you  never  committed  it  to  memory,  did  you? — A.  How? 
Q.  You  never  committed  it  to  memory,  did  you? — A.  Committed 
;  I  don’t  understand  what  you  mean. 

Q.  Memorize  it? — A.  In  what  way? 

Q.  Did  you  ever  memorize  this  story  that  you  have  just  testified 
*,  this  conversation? — A.  As  I  have  given  it? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  have  told  you  what  it  was;  I  must  remember  it. 
Senator  Burrows.  What  he  desires  to  know  is  if  it  was  written  out, 
id  then  vou  committed  it  to  memory? — A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  ask  you  to  look  at  your  testimony  in  the 
•cond  Browne  trial,  and  ask  you  whether  or  not  that  question  was 
>t  asked  you,  from  the  point  I  have  indicated  to  the  point  here,  and 
hether  or  not  you  did  not  so  testify  as  there  indicated? 


542  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Burrows.  Read  that  over,  witness,  to  yourself. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  it  over  to  yourself,  as  quickly  as  you  can. 

Senator  Burrows.  Read  it  over  to  yourself,  and  then  answer  th 
question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Is  that  correct? — A.  That  is  the  statement  I  hay 
just  given. 

Q.  Just  a  moment.  What  did  you  say? — A.  That  is  the  statemer 
I  just  gave  this  moment. 

Q.  That  is  just  the  same? — A.  Practically  so. 

Q.  And  you  were  partly — Mr.  White  was  drunk,  and  you  ha 
been  drinking  for  several  days;  is  that  correct? — A.  Not  for  seven 
days,  I  wouldn’t  say ;  no,  sir.  * 

Q.  You  wrere  drinking  on  the  trips,  weren’t  you? — A.  Well,  we  gc 
here  in  the  morning. 

Q.  And  you  continued  to  drink  during  the  day? — A.  Not  ver 
much  that  day. 

Q.  You  did  drink  during  that  day  and  you  were  drinking  coi 
siderably  at  night? — A.  At  night  I  did;  yes. 

Q.  And  you  had  this  talk  with  Mr.  White  this  night? — A.  Yes,  si 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  make  the  same  offer  with  regard  to  th 
witness  that  I  did  the  prior  one. 

Senator  Burrows.  There  is  no  objection  to  that. 

(Whereupon  said  Exhibit  1-X.  K.  F.  L.  10/5/10,  is  in  the  word 
and  figures  following,' to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  1-X.  K.  F.  L.  10/5/10.] 

[From  the  testimony  of  Fred  Zentner,  pages  1887  and  1388,  volume  3,  Record  in  Peop 

v.  Browne.  ] 

Q.  And  at  that  time  and  place  did  Charles  A.  White  say  to  you  that  he  wt 
going  to  have  a  big  trip  in  the  fall  and  winter;  that  he  was  going  to  his  hon 
in  O’Fallon,  and  then  to  New  Orleans,  then  to  Cuba,  and  then  up  to  New  York 
that  he  was  going  to  have  a  iarge  time  in  New  York  and  then  come  hon 
again ;  and  did  you  say  to  him  at  that  time  and  place  in  that  conversatioi 
“  You  must  have  a  lot  of  money  to  take  a  trip  like  that,”  and  did  White  say  1 
you,  “  I  don’t  have  to  have  a  lot  of  money,  but  I  am  going  to  get  it  and  I  a; 
going  to  get  it  without  work,”  and  did  you  say  to  him  at  that  time,  “  Win 
do  you  mean?”  And  did  White  say  to  you,  “Well,  that  Lorimer  bunch  an 
Browne  have  got  to  come  across.”  Did  you  then  say  to  White,  “  What  c 
you  mean  by  that?”  And  did  White  say  to  you,  “I  got  the  worst  of  it  i 
Springfield ;  I  voted  for  Lorimer  and  I  am  a  Democrat.  If  I  say  I  got  mone 
for  voting  for  him  I  guess  they  will  come  over,  won’t  they?”  And  did  yc 
say  at  that  time  and  place,  “  My  God,  White !  you  wouldnt  do  that  to  Brown 
would  you?”  And  did  White,  in  response  thereto,  say,  “I  am  looking  oi 
for  Charlie,  and  besides  Browne  won’t  have  to  stand  for  it.”  Did  that  coi 
versation  occur  at  that  time  and  place  or  that  conversation  in  substance?— i 
Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Au  strian.  That  is  all  I  desire  to  ask. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  You  did  testify  to  these  facts  in  the  criminal  court  of  Coo 
County  on  the  first  trial  of  People  v.  Browne,  in  June,  1910,  didn 
you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  not  drinking  at  that  time  or  drunk  when  yo 
so  testified,  were  you? — A.  No,  sir;  I  was  not. 

Q.  And  what  you  said  then  was  written  down  or  taken  down  b 
somebody  and  published  in  the  newspapers  afterwards? — A.  \es,sij 

Q.  And  you  read  it,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes;  I  did. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  543 

Q.  And  it  was  published  in  all  the  newspapers,  wasn’t  it,  or  most 
f  them  ? — A.  I  saw  the  testimony  in  a  number  of  papers,  yes. 

Q.  And  you  read  it  in  a  number  of  papers,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes, 
did. 

Q.  And  then  you  were  called  as  a  witness  in  the  second  trial  of 
Yople  v.  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  in  the  criminal  court  of  Cook  County, 
n  August,  1910,  weren’t  you? — A.  I  was,  yes. 

Q.  And  you  testified  to  the  same  thing,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  was  published,  was  it  not? — A.  I  think  it  was;  yes. 

Q.  And  you  read  it  after  that,  didn’t  you  ? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  weren’t  drinking  when  you  testified  the  second  time  in 
he  Browne  trial,  or  under  the  influence  of  liquor,  were  you? — A.  No, 
ir. 

Q.  And  you  told  the  truth  on  both  occasions? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  did. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  The  fact  that  you  read  it  in  the  newspapers  on  the  first  trial  or 
fter  the  first  trial,  and  the  fact  that  you  read  it  in  the  newspapers 
fter  the  second  trial,  that  didn’t  refresh  your  recollection  as  to 
diat  the  occurrence  and  conversation  was? — A.  Why,  no;  I  don’t 
hink  it  did. 

Q.  You  knew,  then,  before  you  testified,  didn’t  you? — A.  Why, 
ertainly. 

Q.  You  didn’t  need  to  read  them  again  to  refresh  your  recollec- 
ion? — A.  No,  sir;  I  didn’t.  The  testimony  that  came  out  in  the 
)apers,  or  certain  parts  of  it,  were  not  as  it  was  given. 

Q.  It  was  not  accurate? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  recognized  the  inaccuracy  of  it  at  the  time? — A.  Yes, 

ir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

By  Senator  Frazier: 

Q.  What  time  of  the  night  was  it  that  this  conversation  occurred? — 
V.  It  was  an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a  half  before  the  bar  closed,  and 
he  bar  closes  at  1  o’clock. 

Q.  It  was  somewhere  between  half  after  11  and  1  o’clock? — 
L  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  low  long  had  you  and  Mr.  White  been  together  that  night 
Irinking? — A.  Well,  we  were  together  the  entire  evening. 

Q.  The  entire  evening? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Drinking  all  the  evening? — A.  Well,  not  right  along.  We 
vere  in  and  out  of  the  hotel  and  in  and  out  of  the  bar. 

Q.  Drinking  pretty  constantly? — A.  Awhile  we  were;  yes,  off 

nd  on. 

Q.  Were  you  gentlemanly  drunk? — A.  I  don’t  know.  I  had  been 
Irinking;  yes,  sir;  I  wasn’t  drunk,  though,  what  you  would  call 
Irunk.  I  have  seen  men  intoxicated. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Browne  drunker  than  you,  or  not  so  drunk? — A.  Mr. 
Irowne  wasn’t  with  us. 

Q.  I  mean  Mr.  White. — A.  Fie  was  drunker  than  I  was;  yes. 

Q.  Mr.  White  was  even  drunker  than  you  were,  was  he? — A.  Yes; 
le  was.  He  got  in  an  altercation  with  some  fellow  at  the  bar  there, 
ind  I  got  him  out  of  it.  That  is  when  Mr.  Stermer  joined  us,  and 
ie  helped  me  get  him  away.  We  sat  down  in  one  of  the  booths  then ; 
hat  is  the  time  Mr.  Stermer  came. 


544  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  He  was  very  drunk,  and  you  were  reasonably  drunk? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  are  sober  now,  I  take  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all. 

The  Witness.  Am  I  dismissed  now?  I  would  like  to  go. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  want  this  witness  again? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t;  no,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you,  Mr.  Austrian? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  all  of  the  testimony  I  have 
here  to-night,  but  I  want  to  offer  the  files  of  the  Chicago  Tribune. 
I  do  not  want  all  of  them,  but  the  charge  has  been  made  here,  and 
repeated  on  a  number  of  occasions  by  counsel  on  the  other  side,  that 
it  has  been  remarkable,  that  it  was  a  remarkable  occurrence,  that 
William  Lorimer  should  spring  up  as  a  candidate  on  the  24th,  25th, 
or  26th,  and  then  be  voted  for  by  men  who  had  never  voted  for  a 
Republican  candidate  before;  that  he  had  never  been  known  as  a 
candidate  prior  to  that  time.  This  honorable  committee  refused  to 
permit  Mr.  Clifford  W.  Barnes,  who  made  the  charges  in  this  case - 

Senator  Gamble.  Refused  to  what? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  beg  your  pardon.  The  committee  said  Mr. 
Barnes,  I  think,  or  intimated  that  Mr.  Barnes  might  appear  here 
with  counsel.  Mr.  Barnes  has.  stated  to  the  committee  that  he  was 
not  prepared ;  he  hadn’t  any  evidence,  and  was  not  prepared  to  sus¬ 
tain  the  charges  that  he  made  and  swore  to,  which  were  filed  in  the 
Senate,  and  he  asked  to  be  relieved  of  that,  and  asked  the  Tribune  l)e 
permitted  to  come  here  and  defend ;  and  Mr.  Austrian  has  said  that 
he  represents  the  Chicago  Tribune,  and  the  Chicago  Tribune  is  here 
with  its  counsel  on  these  charges.  It-  is  the  Tribune’s  counsel  who 
has  made  the  charges  of  the  remarkable  condition  here,  and  asks  this 
committee  to  draw  the  inference  that  money  was  paid,  or  some  val¬ 
uable  consideration  paid  for  votes  for  Senator  Lorimer,  because  Sen¬ 
ator  Lorimer  was  not  a  candidate — or  William  Lorimer  was  not  a 
candidate  for  United  States  Senator — until  the  25th  or  26th  of  May, 
the  day  he  was  voted  for,  or  the  day,  or  possibly  two  days,  before. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  not  through  yet. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  know  you  are  not  through,  but  I  object  to  reading 
into  the  record - 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  proceed?  I  am  not  reading. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  counsel  want  to  be  sworn  or  some  one  wants  to 
be  sworn  I  haven’t  any  objection,  but  I  do  object  to  the  going  into  the 
record  of  what  some  newspaper  said,  or  what  is  in  the  files  of  some 
newspaper,  until  we  have  some  one  under  oath  to  prove  it,  that  is  all. 
I  never  asked  you  to  draw  any  inferences  on  any  testimony.  This 
is  not  the  time  to  ask  anyone  to  draw  inferences. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  not  asking,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
that  any  credit  be  given  to  any  statement  in  the  paper. 

Senator  Frazier.  What  is  it  you  offer,  Judge,  I  didn’t  catch  it? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  have  a  subpoena  for  the  custodian  of 
the  files  of  the  Tribune  in  the  public  library,  for  the  purpose  of  in¬ 
troducing  certain  parts  of  that  book. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  can  get  a  subpoena  without  making  a  speech 
about  it. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  545 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  us  know  what  he  desires,  what  the  Judge 
lesires  us  to  do. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  want  this  honorable  committee  to  say  I 
hould  have  told  them  what  it  was  in  advance.  I  am  telling  this 
ommittee  now  what  I  want  from  those  files.  I  want  from  the  files 

ommencmg  May  5  and  May  6,  1909,  from  that  down  to  the  26th _ - 

Senator  Burrows.  What  for;  what  is  the  object  of  it? 

Judge  Hanecy.  For  the  purpose  of  showing  that  MTlliam  Lonmer 
id  not  spring  up  as  a  candidate  the  day  he  was  elected,  or  the  day 

•e fore,  and  that  it  was  not  talked  for  the  first  time - 

Senator  I  razier.  M  ould  the  statements  of  the  newspaper  be  com¬ 
ment  evidence  to  prove  that  or  any  other  fact? 

Judge  Hanecy.  They  would  be  competent  as  against  the  man - 

'  Senator  Frazier.  If  it  is  a  fact  he  was  a  candidate,  you  could  bring- 
eople  to  show  that  fact.  & 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  I  may  be  permitted,  Senator  Frazier,  to  answer 
our  mam  question.  They  would  be  evidence  against  the  publisher 
f  that  newspaper,  who  is  sitting  here,  and  who  is  permitted  to  come 
ere,  by  his  counsel,  and  make  these  charges,  and  ask  this  committee 
i  draw  the  inferences  of  improper  conduct  and  purchasing  of  votes, 
ecause  of  the  fact  that  William  Lorimer  was  not  a  candidate  and 
ot  known  as  such  until  the  day  that  he  was  elected,  or  a  day  or  two 
efore.  Now,  it  is  true,  and  I  am  not  going  to  attempt  to  contro- 
ert  it,  that  the  publications  of  a  newspaper  should  not  be  given 
redit  as  testimony,  except  as  to  the  parties  that  publish  it.  It  is 
le  Chicago  Tribune  here  that  is  making  these  charges.  And  if  I 
as  permitted  to  tell  what  took  place  in  an  executive  session  here 
could  draw  other  inferences,  but  I  appeal  to  the  memory  of  the 
lembeis  of  this  committee,  who  were  present  here  on  these  occasions 
>  show  why  it  was,  why  I  am  making  this  offer,  and  to  show  that 
11s  committee  was  asked  to  draw  that  inference  from  the  fact  that 
e  sprang  up  as  a  candidate,  without  any  notice,  and  that  it  was  a 
‘markable  condition,  it  was  a  remarkable  condition,  that  he  should 
)me  into  the  joint  session,  and  then  have  53  Democrats  and  55  Be- 
ublicans  vote  foi  him.  That  was  the  statement  that  was  made  here, 
id  the  question  was  asked  if  it  was  presumed  that  every  Democrat 
ho  voted  for  William  Lorimer  had  been  purchased,  and  if  infer- 
lce  was  to  be  drawn  that  because  a  Democrat  did  vote  for  him,  that 
i  was  purchased.  It  was  then  stated  by  counsel  on  the  other  side 
tat  it  was  a  remarkable  condition  that  he  should  spring  up  at  that 
me;  it  was  a  suspicious  circumstance. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  does  not  the  journal  of  the  joint  sessions 
tow  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  voted  for  on  days  previous  to  that  time? 
Judge  Hanecy.  Only  a.  few  days  previous,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  it  shows  he  was  voted  for  the  first  time  on  the 
Ill  day  of  May,  1909. 

Senator  Burrows.  My  recollection  is  the  journal  shows  that  he 
is  voted  for  and  had  one  vote. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  right,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  on  the  5th  of 
ay,  before  he  was  ever  voted  for,  the  Chicago  Tribune,  in  its  news 
lumns  and  editorially,  proclaimed  him  as  a  candidate,  and  reported 

at  fact.  1 

Senator  Burrows.  Suppose  it  did,  how  does  that  affect  the  ques- 

>n? 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 35 


546  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  It  would  not  affect  it  at  all,  ]\Ir.  Chairman,  if 
it  was  not  for  the  argument  that  was  made  here,  and  if  that  aigu- 
ment  is  to  be  presented,  and  it  has  been  listened  to. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  the  committee  will  be  able  to  weigh  ail 

the  arguments,  I  think,  pro  and  con.  T 

Judge  Hanecy.  But  here  are  the  facts,  Mr.  Chairman.  Here  is 
the  statement  by  the  party  who  has  counsel  come  here  and  make  that 
argument  and  ask  this  committee  to  make  the  deduction  from  it  that 
improper  means  were  used.  Now,  if  this  honorable  committee  does 
not  care  to  hear  it,  I  do  not  care  to  persist  in  urging  it,  but  I  want 
to  make  the  offer  here  so  that  the  record  will  show  that  we  are  not 
concealing  anything  from  this  committee ,  that  we  are  not  asking 
that  the  declarations  of  this  Chicago  Tribune,  the  prosecutor  of  these 
charges,  proclaimed  at  the  time,  as  early  as  the  5th  of  May,  1909, 
that  William  Lorimer  was  a  candidate  and  was  likely  to  be  elected 


United  States  Senator. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  there,  Judge,  what  you  propose  to 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  not,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  have  the  dates,  the 
issues ;  on  the  5th  of  May. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  stipulate  with  counsel  that 
everything  written  by  the  Chicago  Tribune  with  reference  to  Mr. 
Lorimer  and  the  senatorial  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  may  go  into 

the  record. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  only  want  that  data  relative  to  this  matter  of  the 

election  of  Mr.  Lorimer.  ,  KO 

Senator  Gamble.  Is  it  to  be  presumed,  I  ask,  that  because  53,  as 
I  understand,  Democrats  of  the  legislature  voted  for  Senator  Lonmei 
in  his  election,  that  the  presumption  should  rest  against  them  that 
they  did  it  through  improper  motives  or  that  they  were  corrupted! 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  can  not  well  be  in  any  judicial  tribunal  or  an} 
tribunal  that  has  a  discretion  to  hear  and  determine  But  that  is 
the  charge  and  the  charges  themselves  refute  the  charge  that  is 
openly  made  here.  I  am  not  going  to  persist  m  having  it  go  in,  bin 
I  want,  this  honorable  committee  to  know  what  this  honorable  news 
paper  has  said  on  previous  occasions  about  his  candidacy,  commenc 

ing  on  the  5th  of  May.  .  .  ,  ,, 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  Judge,  the  committee  does  not  think  tha 


is  proper.  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  Very  well,  Mr.  Chairman 

Senator  Burrows.  It  does  not  throw  any  light  on  the  main  ques 

tion,  on  the  question  we  are  trying.  ,  ,  • 

Judge  Hanecy.  All  I  desire  to  do  is  to  make  the  offer  and  then  l 
this  honorable  committee  desires  to  use  it  we  will  produce  the  hie 
or  thev  can  be  produced  and  examined  by  the  committee. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  think  it  will  not  be  necessary. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all  the  witnesses  I  have  here  now,  Mi 
Chairman.  I  may  have  one  or  two  to-morrow. 

Senator  Burrows.  T  ou  have  none  others  to-day  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  none  others  here  to-day. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  Mr.  Curran  here?  I  have  lost  track  of  tha. 
Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  lost  track  of  that,  too,  because  I  have  los 
the  data  and  am  not  prepared  with  that. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  547 
Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  any  other  witness? 

^  Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  no  more  witnesses  until  they  close,  Mr. 
Chairman,  and  then  I  do  not  know  whether  I  will  have  any. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Broderick  and  Mr.  Wilson. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  Broderick  and  Wilson,  but  I  don’t  know 
diether  I  will  have  any  at  that  time  or  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  stand  adjourned  until  to- 
norrow  at  10  o’clock. 

(Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  to-morrow  mornin"  at 
0  o’clock.) 

THURSDAY,  OCTOBER  6,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

At  10  o’clock  a.  m.  the  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
The  following  members  of  the  subcommittee  were  present:  Hon. 

.  C.  Burrows,  chairman;  Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble,  Hon.  W.  B.  Hey- 

urn,  Hem.  Thomas  H.  Paynter,  Hon.  Joseph  F.  Johnston,  and  Hon. 
ames  B.  Frazier. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  now  be  in  order.  Is  Mr. 
Iroderick  present  ? 

John  Broderick,  recalled  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first 
uly  sworn,  testified  as  follows  : 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  examine  Mr.  Broderick? 
want  to  ask  him  a  few  questions,  and  the  committee  can  say 
Tether  I  can  go  on  or  not. 

^r*  Austrian.  I  asked  for  a  subpoena  for  Mr.  Broderick.  I  have 
ot  asked  the  privilege  of  examining  any  witness  that  Judge  Hanecy 
rought  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  object  to  his  examining  him? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  committee  has  said  that  every  witness  here 
as  the  committee’s  witness.  I  did  not  know  that^Mr.  Austrian 
ould  have  any  special  privilege  of  saying  who  would  first  examine 
iv  witness.  I  do  this  to  expedite  matters  here  and  to  aid  in  a 
)eedy  disposition  of  them.  I  desire  to  go  right  to  the  questions 
lat  this  committee  want  answered,  Mr.  Chairman. 

(Committee  confers  out  of  the  hearing  of  the  reporter.) 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  proceed. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Broderick,  what  is  your  full  name?— A.  John 
roderick. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  or  occupation? — A.  Saloon  keeper. 

Q.  Are  you  a  state  senator  of  the  State  of  Illinois? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  been  such? — A.  I  first  got  elected  in  1898, 
id  I  served  the  forty-first  and  forty-second,  and  then  the  next  term 
Td  not  run,  and  then  I  got  reelected ;  I  got  elected  to  the  forty-fifth 
id  then  the  forty-sixth. 

Q.  The  term  of  senator  in  this  State  is  four  years? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  How  many  terms  have  you  been  elected?— A.  I  have  been 
icted  twice. 

Q.  Have  you  been  renominated  at  the  recent  primaries? — A.  Yes, 

Q.  For  election  at  the  November  election? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  a  member  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  of  Illi- 
►is,  were  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


548  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Do  you  know  D.  W.  Holstlaw  ? — A.  I  do,  sir.  . 

Q.  And  did  you  know  him  during  the  session  of  the  forty-sixth 

general  assembly  ? — A.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  talk  wTith  Senator  Holstlaw  on  the  night  of  the 
26th  of  May,  1909?— A.  I  don’t  recollect  that  I  did.  I  might  have 

talked  to  him,  but  I  don’t  remember  that. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  Senator  Holstlaw,  on  the  evening  of  the  25th 
of  May,  1909,  on  the  sidewalk  in  front  of  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  in 
Springfield - A.  No,  sir. 

Q  (Continuing.)  “  We  are  going  to  elect  Mr.  Lorimer  to-morrow, 
aren’t  we?  ”  And  did  Mr.  Holstlaw  say  to  you:  “  Yes;  I  thought  we 
'were,  and  that  I  intended  to  vote  for  him.”— A.  I  don’t  remember 
meeting  Mr.  Holstlaw  in  front  of  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  nor  do  I 
remember  of  any  conversation  taking  place  of  that  kind  that  night. 

Q.  x\nd  did  you  say  to  Mr.  Holstlaw  on  that  occasion :  “  There  is 
$2,500  for  you  ?  ” — A.  I  am  positive  that  did  not  take  place. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  answer  ? 

The  Witness.  No,  sir. 

Judge  IIanecy.  You  are  positive  that  did  not  take  place?— A.  1 
am  positive  that  did  not  take  place;  I  may  have  talked  to  him,  but  I 
don’t  remember.  I  can  not  recollect  whether  I  talked  to  him  oi  not 
on  the  night  before,  because  they  were  talking  and  mixing  up,  back 

and  forth.  .  .  ,T 

Senator  Burrows.  That  conversation  did  not  occur? — A.  Not  at 

all. 

judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  ever  say  to  Senator  D.  W.  Holstlaw,  at 
that  time  or  at  any  time,  at  any  place,  that  there  would  be  $2,500  in 
it  for  him  if  he  voted  for  Lorimer,  or  in  connection  with  his  voting 
for  Lorimer,  or  in  connection  with  any  statement  that  he  would  oi 
might  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  ?— A.  No. 

sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Senator  Holstlaw  in  Chicago  in  June,  about  June 
16  or  17,  1909?  On  or  about  that  time,  did  you  see  him?— A.  I  seer 
Mr.  Holstlaw  in  Chicago,  but  as  to  the  time  I  would  not  be  sure. 

Q,  Well,  did  you  see  him  during  the  month  of  June,  1909?— A.  J 
think  it  was  about  the  month  of  June  I  met  him  in  Chicago. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  in  Chicago  more  than  once  during  tin 
month  of  June,  1909?— A.  Not  that  I  can  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  at  your  place  of  business  more  than  onc( 

during  the  month  of  June,  1909? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  On  that  occasion  did  you  take  Mr.  Senator  Holstlaw  into  vow 
office,  off  your  saloon  or  connected  with  your  saloon,  and  hand  hnr 

$2,500?— A.  I  did  not,  sir.  . 

Q.  Did  you,  on  that  occasion,  or  any  other  occasion,  at  that  place 

or  any  other  place,  ever  give  Senator  Holstlaw  $2,500? — A.  No,  sir 

I  did  not.  , 

Q.  Did  you,  at  that  place  or  any  other  place,  at  any  time,  e\er  gi\< 

Senator  Holstlaw  any  money? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Senator  Holstlaw,  after  that,  in  Chicago,  at  you 
place  of  business  ? — A.  I  never  remember  of  meeting  him  at  Chicag 
at  my  place  of  business  but  on  one  occasion,  and  I  think  that  was  n 

the  month  of  J une.  .  , . 

Q.  Did  you  ever  at  any  time,  at  your  place  of  business,  or  any  otne 

place,  or  at  any  other  time,  give  Senator  Holstlaw  $700  in  money.- 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  549 

4.  T  never  had  any  financial  transaction  with  Senator  Holstlaw  of 

my  kind.  ^  T  ,  . 

Q.  Well,  did  you  give  him  $(00? — A.  I  did  not,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  intimate  to  Senator  Holstlaw  that  you  would  give 
him*  $2,500,  or  any  other  sum  of  money  or  any  other  thing  of  value, 
in  connection,  remotely,  with  the  election  or  the  proposed  election  of 
William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q  Did  you  ever  give  anyone  else  money  for  voting  for  W  llliam 
Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator?— A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Any  time  or  place  ? — A.  No. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  was  that  question? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  he  ever  give  anybody  * 

Senator  Burrows.  Oh,  yes.  T  .  -  Tt  •+  i 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United 

States  Senator? — A.  I  did,  sir.  .  .  ,  .  , 

n  Why  2 _ A.  Why,  because  Lorimer  has  been  a  friend  of  mine  for 

a  good  many  years ;  besides,  I  am  affiliated  with  a  lot  of  Ins  friends 

Q  Did  you  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senatoi 
because  of  any  money  or  other  thing  of  value  that  was  offered  to 
you,  or  given  to  you,  or  offered  to  you,  or  that  you  understood,  or 

believed,  or  thought  would  be  given  to  you  ?— A  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  get  any  money  or  other  thing  of  value .  A. 

Continued. )  At  any  time  or  any  place,  because  you  had  voted 
for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator,  or  in  connection 

with  your  voting  for  him,  in  any  way  ?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q  Did  you  ever  say  to  Senator  Holstlaw  on  the  sidewalk  m  front 
of  tile  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  on  the  afternoon  or  evening  of  the  25th  of 
May  1909,  or  at  any  other  time  or  place,  in  a  conversation  in  relation 
to  the  possible  or  probable  election  of  William  Lorimer  for  United 
States  Senator,  that  “  there  is  $2,500  for  you  if  you  want  to  vote  that 
way,”  meaning  for  Lorimer?  Did  you  ever  say  that  to  Senator 

Holstlaw?— A.  No,  sir.  ,  .  ,  ,  ,,  •  „ 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  that,  or  that  in  substance,  or  anything  like 

it?— A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Mr.  Broderick,  how  old  are  you? — A.  Forty-five  past. 

Q.  Where  were  you  born? — A.  Ireland.  _  __  . 

Q.  When  did  you  come  to  the  city  of  Chicago? — A.  I  came  here 

in  ’81.  n  .  „ 

Q.  You  have  been  here  since  1881  ?— A.  Yes,  sir  # 

Q.  What  business  are  you  now  engaged  in  ? — A.  Liquor  business. 

Q.  You  mean  a  saloon  ? — A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  the  saloon  business  in  the 

city  of  Chicago?— A.  About  seventeen  years. 

Q.  Other  than  being  in  the  legislature,  as  indicated  by  you,  your 
entire  occupation  has  been  that  of  a  saloon  keeper  in  the  city  of  Chi¬ 
cago?— A.  For  that  length  of  time,  seventeen  years. 

Q.  Seventeen  years? — A.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Witness,  you  would  accommodate  the  com¬ 
mittee  if  you  would  speak  louder,  so  that  we  can  hear  you.— A.  All 
right,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will. 


550  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Broderick,  have  you  been  active  in  politics  in 
the  city  of  Chicago  in  the  last  seventeen  years? — A.  Some. 

Q.  You  have  been  quite  active,  haven’t  you? — A.  I  have  always 
helped  my  friends  if  I  could. 

Q.  What  ward  do  you  live  in? — A.  The  eighteenth. 

Q.  You  have  lived  in  that  w^ard  for  some  time? — A.  Ever  since _ 

you  might  say  ever  since  I  came  to  Chicago. 

Q.  ^  ou  are  a  Democrat,  are  you  not  ? — A.  I  am,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  elected  to  the  Illinois  legislature,  the  lower  house,  as 
a  Democrat  ? — A.  The  upper  house. 

Q.  I  mean  the  upper  house. — A.  Yes. 

Q.  As  a  Democrat? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Each  time  you  were  elected ;  is  that  correct  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Prior  to  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  did  you  vote  for  William  Lori- 
mer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  What  is  that  question? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  it. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q..  Mr.  Broderick,  were  you  active  in  the  interests  of  Mr.  Lori- 
mer — that  is,  in  furthering  his  election  as  United  States  Senator  at 
Springfield— during  the  month  of  May,  1909?— A.  Not  very. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  anyone  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  immediately  prior 
to  Mr.  Lorimer’s  election  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909  ? — A.  I  would  not 
say  I  asked  anybody  to  vote  for  him;  I  might  ask  them  if  they  were 
going  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  or  something  to  that  effect. 

Q.  You  will  tell  this  committee  you  did  not,  so  far  as  you  now 
recollect,  ask  any  member  of  the  house  or  the  senate  to  vote  for  Mr. 
Lorimer;  is  that  correct? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  That  is,  you  were  not  sufficiently  interested  in  his  candidacv  to 
solicit  votes  for  him;  is  that  correct? — A.  Well,  I  talked  along, 
always  explaining  I  was  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer  if  the  opportunity 
presented  itself,  and  there  w’ere  a  great  many  others  wdio  were  just 
as  anxious  to  vote  for  Lorimer  as  I  w^as. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  if  you  were  sufficiently  interested  in  his  can¬ 
didacy  to  ask  people,  ask  men,  or  try  to  influence  men  to  vote  for 
him  ? — A.  Not  a  great  deal. 

Q.  Speak  louder. — A.  No. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  your  answer.  Now,  Mr.  Broderick,  Mr. 
Holstlaw^  wTas  a  Republican  member  of  the  senate? — A.  No,  sir;  I 
thought  he  wTas  a  Democrat. 

Q,  He  w  as  Democrat  ? — A.  He  was  elected  as  a  Democrat. 

Q.  Prior  to  the  26th  of  May  he  had  not  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer, 
had  he? — A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Were  you  well  acquainted  with  Mr.  Holstlaw?— A.  Well,  yes; 
although  I  never  met  him  until  the  beginning  of  the  forty-sixth 
session. 

Q.  Were  you  intimate  with  him?— A.  We  got  fairly  well  ac¬ 
quainted  during  that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  associate  with  him?— A.  Not  a  great  deal,  any 
more  than  while  we  were  up  in  the - 

Q..  Senate  chamber? — A.  Senate  chamber. 

Q.  You  would  pass  the  word  of  “good  day”  to  him?— A.  Yes; 

I  sat  down  and  talked  with  him  sometimes:  we  stopped  at  the  same 
hotel. 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  551 


Q.  The  St.  Nicholas  Hotel?— A.  Yes.  . 

Q.  That  is  where  almost  all  of  the  members  of  the  legislature 

stopped?— A.  Yes,  sir.  ,  ,, 

Q.  But  he  was  not  one  of  your  chums  or  companions  down  there, 

was  he? — A.  No 5  I  would  not  say  he  was. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  occasion  to  call  on  him  or  have  him 
call  upon  you  after  the  legislature  had  adjourned? — A.  Did  I  ever 

have  any?  No,  sir ;  I  never  did.  __  * . 

Q.  You  had  no  business  relations  with  him - A.  IN  o,  sir. 

Q.  (Continuing.)  That  would  bring  you  together  at  all?— A.  Mo, 

sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  write  to  him  to  call  on  you  ?  . 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  object  to  the  question,  and,  Mr.  Broderick,  I 

advise  you  not  to  answer  it. 

The  Witness.  I  refuse  to  answer - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Wait  a  minute;  I  object  to  counsel  interpolating 


any  objection.  .  ,  . 

Senator  Burrows.  It  is  purely  a  personal  privilege  and  counsel 

can  not  direct  the  witness.  If  he  desires  to  avail  himself  of  the  con¬ 
stitutional  privilege,  it  is  a  matter  for  him  to  determine  and  not  for 

counsel.  .  .  , ,  T  , 

Mr.  Dawson.  May  I  ask  the  chair  a  question?  May  I  make  a 

statement  to  the  chairman  and  members  of  the  committee - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit  that  this  witness  has  "taken  the  stand  and 
has  undertaken  to  testify  in  response  to  questions  put.  by  Judge 
Hanecy,  and  I  submit  that  now  I  should  have  the  privilege  of  ask¬ 
ing  this  witness  questions,  cross-examining  him  without  his  being 
educated  in  any  way  by  his  personal  counsel.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  has  passed  on  that  and  there  is 

no  occasion  for  any  discussion.  #  . 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  do  not  desire  to  enter  into  any  discussion  with  any¬ 
body  at  all,  but  simply  as  counsel  for  Mr.  Broderick  I  would  like  to 
make  a  statement  and  explain.  May  I  be  permitted  to  do  so? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  briefly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  request -  .  . 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  understand  that  I  have  the  permission  ot  the 

chairman -  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  make  the  request  that  the  witness  be  with¬ 
drawn  and  sent  to  the  witness  room? 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  proper.  You  may  retire  to  the  room 

for  the  witnesses,  please,  Mr.  Broderick. 

(Witness  thereupon  left  the  room.) 

Mr.  Dawson.  As  I  stated  before,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of 
the  committee,  I  appeared  in  the  first  instance  and  I  appear  here 
this  morning  as  one  of  the  counsel  for  Mr.  Broderick.  I  appear  here 
at  his  request,  and  I  want  to  suggest  in  appearing  here  that  I  do 
not  come  here  to  embarrass  this  inquiry  in  any  phase  of  it.  However, 
I  thought  I  had  the  right  to  be  present  at  a  hearing  of  this  char¬ 
acter  as  counsel  for  Senator  Broderick  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  permit  a  man  the  right 
to  have  counsel  in  a  proceeding  which  might  allect  his  life,  libeity, 

or  property. 


552  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

I  contend,  Mr.  Chairman,  most  respectfully  that  an  inquiry  of  this 
kmd  and  of  this  character,  with  respect  to  the  man  I  represent  is 
a  matter  respecting  one  of  his  constitutional  rights,  that  of  personal 
liberty.  And  I  stated  here  before  that  I  was  one  of  the  counsel,  and 
yesterday  I  got  the  permission  of  this  committee  to  have  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  here  postponed  until  I  could  advise  and  consult  with  other 
gentlemen  who  will  represent  Mr.  Broderick  in  the  case  at  Spring- 
fieid,  Sangamon  County,  where  he  is  brought  to  the  bar  of  justice 
of  the  State  of  Illinois;  and  I  did  so,  and  I  consulted  with  Mr 
Broderick  and  conveyed  to  him  their  advice,  and  gave  him  advice. 

lie  asked  me  to  be  with  him  here  this  morning  and  to  serve  any 
and  all  rights  that  he  might  have  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I  thought  that  I  was  not  interfering  with  any  rules 
of  this  committee.  It  had  not  been  indicated  to  me  at  times  previous 
to  the  present  that  my  appearance  here  would  be  objectionable  in 

any  way,  and  I  now  hope  that  that  position  will  not  be  taken  bv  this 
body  this  morning.  J 

My  sole  purpose  in  appearing  here  is  to  protect  the  rights  of  my 
client,  Mr.  Broderick.  I  am  a  sworn  olhcer  of  the  State  of  Illinois 
a  practicing  attorney  here,  and  my  first  duty  is  to  him  above  every¬ 
thing  else.  The  matters,  in  my  judgment,  as  indicated  by  the  in¬ 
quiry  here  may  be  gone  into  in  violation  of  his  rights  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  I  contend,  Mr.  Chairman, 
and  insist  most  respectfully,  that  Mr.  Broderick  lias  the  right  to 
have  me  here,  and  that  I  have  the  right  to  be  here  and  advise  with 
him  and  consult  with  him,  and  to  use  my  best  judgment  as  his  attorney 
m  reference  to  the  questions  that  are  propounded  to  him. 

t-here  is  any  particular  method  which  you  gentlemen  want  me 
to  follow,  I  will  respectfully  do  so,  and  I  will  be  glad  to  do  it  in 
any  way  you  may  indicate,  and  I  am  only  doing  what  I  attempt  to 
do  here  in  the  interests  of  my  client,  and  if  it  interferes  with  your 
method  of  procedure  I  am  sorry,  and  I  will  conform  to  any  rules 
you  may  lay  down  relative  to  the  performance  of  my  duties  in  the 
matters  that  I  have  indicated,  but  I  think  that  I  should  be  permitted 
c  I  have  stated  here,  by  my  advice  and  counsel,  telling 

ill.  Broderick  as  these  things  come  up.  I  don’t  know  what  ques¬ 
tions  may  be  propounded,  but  I  think  that  Mr.  Broderick  has  the 
right,  under  the  Constitution,  in  a  measure  not  to  substitute  his 
judgment  entirely— to  substitute  mine  for  his  own— but  that  I  might 

have  some  method  of  talking  over  each  question  with  him,  if  he 
desires  to  have  it. 

Senator  Bx  rrows.  Of  course,  you  understand  no  objection  is  bein0, 
made  to  your  presence.  The  objection  made  is  to  your  answering 
for  the  witness  and  claiming  his  privilege.  That  is  believed  bv  the 
committee  to  be  his  personal  right,  a  personal  right  belonging  to 
him.  J  here  would  be  no  objection,  of  course,  to  your  consulting  with 
the  witness,  but  the  objection  must  come  from  the  witness  and  not 
from  his  attorney. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Very  well,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  right? 

Senator  Paynter.  Yes. 

.  ^r-  Dawson.  Y  ell,  wTe  will  have  the  privilege,  so  that  if  he  de¬ 
sires,  he  can  turn  to  me  and  have  counsel  or  advice  as  to  whether  he 
shall  answer  or  not.  Am  I  correct  in  that? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  553 

Senator  Burrows.  You  have  the  right  to  consult  with  him;  but 

e  must  avail  himself  of  the  constitutional  privilege,  if  he  desires  to 
cercise  it. 

Senator  Johnston.  I  think,  perhaps,  he  ought  to  be  authorized  to 
norm  his  clients  of  the  ruling  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit  that  the  chair  ought  to  direct  the  witness 
hat  his  rights  are ;  that  is  the  usual  procedure. 

Mr.  Dawson.  I  would  ask  the  privilege  of  counsel  with  him  for  a 
■w  minutes. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  think  the  witness  should  not  be  spoken  to 
iter  he  is  sworn,  except  in  the  presence  of  the  committee,  bv  any 
le.  It  is  a  safe  rule.  If  the  witness  might  be  withdrawn  from  the 
and,  m  order  that  he  might  be  talked  to,  it  would  only  be  opening 
dangerous  field  of  inquiry. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Well,  I  will  promise  this _ 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  the  witness  could  be  instructed  as  to  the 
•urse  of  procedure  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  as  to  the 
'urse  of  procedure  that  he  might  follow. 

(Committee  confer  out  of  the  hearing  of  the  reporter.) 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Bumphrey,  have  the  witness  come  in,  Mr 
rodenck. 

(And  thereupon  the  witness,  Mr.  Broderick,  returned  into  the 
mmittee  room.) 

Senator  Paynter.  After  consultation  the  committee  conclude  that 
may  facilitate  the  early  disposition  of  this  matter  by  stating  briefly 
;  conclusions  as  to  the  rights  of  witnesses  under  the  circumstances, 
t  course  we  are  proceeding  under  an  order  of  the  Senate.  There  is 
statute  that  regulates  our  duty  with  reference  to  questions  that  may 
lse  as  has  been  suggested  by  the  statement  of  counsel,  and  the 
uitude  of  the  witness.  A  witness  may  refuse  to  answer  a  question 
d  when  he  does  so  he  does  it  at  his  peril.  He  takes  the  risk  If  it’ 
a  question  that  he  should  answer,  has  no  right  to  refuse  to  answer 
en  we  could  report  the  facts  to  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate  could 
such  action  as  it  pleases,  and  in  the  event  that  the  Senate  thought 
at  the  question  should  be  answered,  then  an  indictment  might  be 

Ur^ienoogaiTL  the  w.ltness>  and  he  might  be  fined,  I  think,  not 
er  $i,000  and  by  imprisonment  for  a  certain  time-I  do  not  remem- 

r  the  statute ;  I  think,  though,  from  six  months  to  a  year.  Of  course 
the  wflness  gives  as  a  reason  for  refusing  to  answer  that  the  answer 
add  tend  to  incriminate  him,  and  this  committee  and  the  Senate 
>uld  take  the  view  of  it  that  he  had  the  constitutional  right  to 
use,  then  he  would,  of  course,  incur  no  penalty.  But  if,  as  I  first 
ted,  if  the  question  is  asked  and  he  refuses  to  answer,  whether  he 

es  a  reason  for  it  or  not,  if  it  should  be  answered,  then  he  incurs _ 

takes  the  risk  of  incurring  the  penalty.  Is  there  anything  else? 
this  statement  is  made  for  the  purpose,  thinking  perhaps  that  we 
ght  avoid  constant  consultation  of  the  witness  with  counsel  but 
inderstand,  as  Senator  Burrows  announced  a  moment  a«-o  if  the5 
i  ness  wants  to  consult  his  counsel  he  has  got  a  right  to  do  it  after 
dining  to  answer  or  taking  time  to  determine. 

•senator  Johnston.  That  is,  when  a  question  is  asked  the  witness 
i  ne  has  a  doubt  whether  he  should  answer  by  reason  of  some  pro- 

mgs  against  him,  he  may  consult  his  counsel  as  to  whether  he 
>uld  answer  or  not. 


554  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

The  Witness.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
there  won’t  be  any  difficulty  in  getting  me  to  answer  every  question 
that  is  put  to  me  until  he  puts  one  to  me  that  might  interfere  with  my 
defense  when  my  trial  comes  off. 

Senator  Gamble.  Might  it  not  be  well  to  show  affirmatively  in  the 
record,  in  connection  with  the  testimony  of  the  witness  the  matter  of 
that  indictment  pending  against  him  in  Sangamon  County  ? 

Senator  Paynter.  I  may  add  here,  so  you  will  fully  understand  the 
position  of  the  committee-  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  committee  to 
punish  a  witness  for  contempt ;  all  the  committee  can  do  is  to  report 
the  facts  to  the  Senate,  and  then  it  will  be  determined. 

Mr.  Dawson.  Permit  me  to  make  a  little  statement,  Mr.  Chairman 
at  this  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Dawson.  In  view  of  the  committee’s  statement  as  to  their  posi¬ 
tion,  I  would  like  to  have  an  opportunity  of  conferring  with  my  client 
for  a  few  moments,  to  see  if  he  thoroughly  understands  the  positior 
which  he  takes. 

Senator  Paynter.  How  long  would  it  take  you,  Senator? 

Mr.  Dawson.  It  would  not  take  me  very  long.  I  want  to  say  this 
Mr.  Chairman - 

Senator  Paynter.  Can  you  do  it  in  five  minutes? 

Mr.  Dawson.  Five  minutes,  yes ;  I  might  differ  with  the  construe 
tion  of  the  powers  of  the  committee - 

Senator  Burroavs.  Well,  you  take  the  witness;  you  can  get  througl 
your  conference  with  him  in  fi\Te  minutes? 

Mr.  Daavson  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly  I  do  not  think  the  committee  woulc 
consent,  as  questions  are  asked,  that  he  should  have  a  consultatioi 
with  his  attorney  before  he  answers.  We  can  not  haA^e  that.  T  ou  car 
advise  him  as  you  see  fit  and  then  the  witness  Avill  go  on  with  the  ex 
animation.  We  will  give  you  five  minutes  to  consult  with  him. 

Mr.  Daavson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  no  desire  to  embarrass  tb 
committee  in  any  way.  I  just  want  to  understand  myself  and  havi 
my  client  understand  just  how  you  want  us  to  proceed  to  protect  ou 

rights.  . 

Senator  Burroavs.  Well,  you  understand  the  attitude  of  the  com 

mittee. 

Mr.  Daavson.  I  do  not.  I  would  like  to  put  one  question  to  yor 
as  chairman  of  the  committee,  Hoav  lie  Avould  indicate  when  a  ques 
tion  is  asked,  Avhether  he  Avants  my  advice  as  counsel.  I  do  not  wan 
to  object  for  him;  I  do  not  want  to  do  anything  you  do  not  Avan 
me  to  do;  I  simply  want  to  preserve  his  rights  in  every  way  I  shoulc 

in  the  performance  of  my  duty.  .  . 

Senator  Burroavs.  In  vieAV  of  Senator  Paynter’s  statement,  I  thin 
the  witness  understands  exactly  his  privileges  and  his  rights. 

Mr.  Daavson.  Well,  I  am  not  so  sure  about  that,  it  may  be,  bill 
then,  I  Avould  like  to  advise  with  him  to  see  whether  he  does  or  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  that  is  done,  may  I  suggesi 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  fourth  and  fifth  amend 
ments,  provide  that  no  witness  shall  be  compelled  to  furnish  evident: 
against  himself.  I  wanted  to  know  AAdiether  that  was  included  in  th 
instruction. 


INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  555 

Senator  Burrows.  There  can  be  no  question  about  that,  J uclge. 

Senator  Paynter.  Judge - 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  there  is  a  difference,  Mr.  Chairman.  It 
:ias  been  clearly  defined  in  the  courts,  in  different  cases,  no  man  can 
3e  compelled  to  furnish  testimony  against  himself. 

Senator  Paynter.  Judge,  if  you  understood  my  statement,  we  do 
aot  claim  the  power  to  compel  him  to  answer  any  question,  but  he 
nust  determine  for  himself,  independent  of  counsel,  or  with  the 
idvice  of  counsel,  as  to  whether  or  not  he  wants  to  answer  that  ques¬ 
tion.  It  is  for  him  to  determine;  but  I  say  he  takes  the  risk  of 
mproperly  refusing  to  answer  the  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  only  reason,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
hat  I  suggest  this,  is  that  I  understood  that  the  witness  would  be 
•ompelled  to  say,  in  order  to  avail  himself  of  his  rights,  that  he 
refused  to  answer  because  it  would  incriminate  himself,  I  respect¬ 
fully  submit  that  is  not  the  law ;  that  is  the  law  in  respect  to  certain 
natters.  But  it  is  also  true,  and  I  wanted  to  know  if  that  had  been 
:onsidered  by  the  committee - 

Senator  Paynter.  He  can  give  any  reason  that  he  thinks  is  a 
iroper  one  and  it  will  be  determined  hereafter  whether  or  not  he 
rave  a  good  reason. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all  right. 

(The  witness,  Mr.  Broderick,  and  his  counsel,  Mr.  Dawson,  then 
Hired  from  the  room  for  the  purpose  of  consultation.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  While  we  have  the  intermission - 

(The  witness  and  his  counsel  here  returned  to  the  room  after  a 
hort  absence.) 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  will  you  proceed? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Will  you  read  my  last  question? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Will  you  show,  what  some  of  this  honorable  com- 
nittee  has  suggested,  formerly  in  the  record,  that  there  is  an  indict- 
nent  pending  against  this  witness?  I  know  it  was  informally  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  committee,  and  I  know  that  one  of  this  honorable  com- 
nittee  asked  for  a  copy  of  the  indictment  and  it  was  handed  to  him, 
)ut  I  do  not  think  the  record  shows  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Any  objection  to  the  record  showing  he  was 
ndicted?  #  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  the  whole  indictment  going  on  record; 

have  no  objection  to  a  statement. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  only  thought  I  had  was  to  show  affirmatively, 
>riefly,  in  connection  with  the  testimony,  the  fact  of  his  indictment. 

Senator  Borrows.  Is  there  any  question  but  what  this  is  the  indict- 
nent  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  should  say  not;  I  have  not  any  question  about  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  haven’t  any  desire  to  put  in  the  whole  indictment 
tnd  I  haven’t  any  objection  to  anybody  looking  at  it  and  I  haven’t 
my  objection  to  it  going  in,  if  anybody  wants  it. 

Senator  Joiinston.  It  seems  to  me  it  simply  should  be  shown  what 
he  indictment  charges;  the  indictment  charges  certain  things. 

Judge  ITanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Johnston.  Let  that  go  into  the  record  and  not  the  formal 
mrts  of  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Shall  I  proceed? 


556  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question.  It  is  agreed,  I 
suppose,  that  the  statute  that  is  mentioned  here  announces  a  penalty 
against  a  man  for  bribing  another  for  voting  in  the  legislature  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  the  statute  does. 

Senator  Paynter.  The  statute  has  been  incorporated  in  the  record? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  From  what  counsel  has  said,  does  this  indict¬ 
ment  appear  in  the  proceeding? 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  indictment  does  not  appear  at  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  It  is  an  indictment  against  Mr.  Broderick.  Do 
the  counsel  object  to  the  indictment  going  in? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  just  wanted  the  statement  in,  instead  of  taking 
25  or  50  pages.  Counsel  may  make  a  statement  that  the  indictment 
was  returned  such  and  such  a  date  in  Sangamon  County,  111.,  against 
the  witness  Broderick. 

Senator  Paynter.  It  will  take  but  little  time  to  make  the  indict¬ 
ment  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  indictment. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Then  this  indictment  is  offered. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  there  is  no  objection,  let  the  indictment  go 
into  the  record ;  that  will  disclose  exactly  what  it  is. 

[  Exhibit  ly  consists  of  an  indictment  found  by  the  grand  jury  of 
Sangamon  County,  Ill.,  containing  18  counts,  each  count  charging 
John  Broderick  with  bribing  Daniel  W.  Holstlaw  to  vote  for  William 
Lorimer  for  the  office  of  Senator  of  the  United  States  for  the  State  of 
Illinois.] 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  are  the  same  John  Broderick? 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  agree  to  that;  he  is  the  same  Broderick  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  indictment. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mentioned  in  the  indictment.  And  that  case  is 
still  pending  and  undetermined? 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  agree  to  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  the  Holtslaw  mentioned  in  that  indictment  is 
the  same  Holtslaw  who  was  a  member  of  the  forty-sixth  general 
assembly  and  the  same  man  who  testified  here  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  agree  to  that. 

•  Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  mark  that  as  an  exhibit,  Miss  Lawler? 

Senator  Heyburn.  Has  he  been  arraigned  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  has  been  a  motion  to  quash. 

Mr.  Dawson.  He  has  not  been  arraigned. 

Judge  Hanecy.  They  do  not  arraign  them  in  this  State. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  only  wanted  the  fact  shown  that  he  either 
has  or  has  not  pleaded  to  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  is  only  a  copy  of  the  indictment  and  not  the 
whole  of  the  record. 

Senator  Burrows.  Now  proceed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Will  you  read  the  last  question? 

(Question  read,  as  follows:) 

Q.  Did  you  ever  write  to  him  to  call  on  you? 

Mr.  Austrian.  By  u  him  ”  I  mean  I).  W.  Holtslaw,  of  Iuka,  whom 
you  have  heretofore  referred  to? — A.  I  refuse  to  answer. 

Q.  On  what  ground  do  you  refuse  to  answer? — A.  On  the  ground 
that  I  would  be  compelled  to  give  testimony  against  myself. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  557 

Q.  In  other  words,  you  mean - - 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  no  cross-examina¬ 
tion  be  on  that;  that  ends  that  controversy. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Q.  Mr.  Broderick,  did  you  ever  have  any  occasion  to  write  to  Mr. 
D.  W.  Holtslaw  in  the  month  of  August  to  call  upon  you  ? — A.  I  re¬ 
fuse  to  answer  on  the  same  ground  as  I  said  before. 

Q.  On  what  ground  ? — A.  On  the  same  ground  as  I  stated  before. 

Q.  On  what  ground  do  you  refer  to? — A.  That  I  might  be  com¬ 
pelled  to  give  testimony  against  myself. 

Q.  Mr.  Broderick,  when  did  Mr.  Holtslaw  come  to  see  you? — A. 
Well,  I  don’t  exactly  remember  the  date,  but  he  was  in  my  place  when 
I  came  in  there. 

Senator  Burrows.  Witness,  will  you  speak  a  little  louder? 

The  Witness.  All  right. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Had  he  come  in  response  to  any  invitation  from 
you  to  him  ? — A.  I  refuse  to  answer. 

Q.  Had  you  any  business  with  Holtslaw  which  would  compel  you 
to  invite  him  or  ask  him  to  call  upon  you? — A.  Repeat  that  again. 

Q.  Strike  it  out.  Did  you  have  any  business  with  him  which  would 
necessitate  his  calling  on  you  in  the  month  of  June  or  July? — A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  1909  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  No  business  whatsoever? — -A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  If  he  came  to  see  you  during  the  month  of  June  or  July,  1909, 
did  he  come  on  his  own  volition  or  at  your  request  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  objected  to,  Mr.  Chairman. — A.  I  refuse 
to  answer ;  that  is  the  same  question  all  the  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  refuses  to  answer. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  reason  I  objected,  Mr.  Chairman,  was  that 
I  assumed  the  counsel  would  not  be  permitted  to  repeat  in  the  same 
form  or  the  substance  or  substantially  the  same  form,  questions  which 
this  committtee  had  ruled  he  was  not  required  to  answer,  and  which 
the  law  establishes,  too. 

Senator  Frazier.  This  committee  has  not  made  any  such  ruling; 
this  committee  has  not  ruled  that  he  is  not  required  to  answer  any¬ 
thing;  he  does  that  at  his  peril. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  right;  I  understand  that,  but  this  com¬ 
mittee  has  ruled  that  lie  need  not  answer,  but  if  he  does  not  it  is  at  his 
peril;  that  is  the  law,  and  the  law  is  that  when  lie  has  answered  the 
question  the  question  is  not  open  for  discussion  by  any  court  or 
tribunal.  He  is  the  sole  judge,  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  has  said  in  the  Counselman  and  Hitchcock  case,  and  as  Chief 
Justice  Marshall  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  said  in  a  much 
earlier  decision. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  suggest  that  the  questions  may  be 
asked  with  the  same  liberality  as  they  might  be  asked  were  they 

answered. 

Senator  Frazier.  Precisely. 

Senator  Heyburn.  The  fact  that  they  are  not  answered  does  not 
limit  the  questioning. 

Senator  Burrows.  Proceed,  Mr.  Austrian. 


558  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Broderick,  how  many  times  Avas  D.  W.  Holt- 
slaw  in  your  place  of  business? — A.  I  never  knew  him  in  there  but 
once. 

Q.  Will  you  say  he  was  not  there  in  the  month  of  July? — A.  He 
might  have  been  there  several  times  and  me  not  see  him. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Mr.  Broderick,  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  hear 
a  word  you  say.  You  must  have  a  good  voice,  I  should  judge  from 
your  physique. 

By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  you  did  not  see  him  in  the  month  of  July, 
1909,  in  your  place  of  business? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  see  him  in  the 
month  of  July. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  you  did  or  did  not  see  him - A.  I - 

Q.  What  were  you  going  to  say? — A.  I  answered  the  question. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  you  did  or  did  not  see  him  in  the  month  of 
June,  1909,  in  your  place  of  business? — A.  I  will  not  say  that  because 
I  think  it  A\ms  about  the  month  of  June  that  he  came  up  there. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  as  to  the  date,  the  time  in 
June? — A.  What  do  you  mean,  the  date  or  hour? 

Q.  Yes;  the  date? — A.  I  couldn’t  really  tell  you. 

Q„  Was  it  in  the  morning,  afternoon,  or  evening? — A.  It  Avas  in 
the  forenoon. 

Q.  And  you  Avere  at  your  place  of  business  then  Avere  you? — A.  I 
was;  yes,  sir—no;  I  Avasn’t.  I  came  in  there  and  he  was  in  there 
when  I  came  in. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  come  in? — A.  I  presume  about  half  past  10, 
around  there. 

Q.  Mr.  Broderick,  did  you  ever  have  any  financial  transaction 
with  Mr.  Holtslaw  of  any  kind  whatsoever? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  indebted  to  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  ever  indebted  to  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  give  you  a  note  or  obligation  of  his  of  any  kind?— 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  a  receipt? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When,  for  the  first  time,  did  you  ever  talk  to  Mr.  Holtslaw 
with  reference  to  the  election  of  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  don’t 
remember  of  ever  talking  to  him  over  the  United  States  Senator; 
that  is,  I  presume  we  talked,  but  I  don’t  know  just  exactly  what  the 
remarks  that  we  made;  I  presume  to  the  extent  the  remark  would  be 
like  this,  “  Well,  it  looks  like  Lorimer  Avould  be  elected.” 

Q.  What  did  he  say? — A.  He  Avas  in  keeping  with  the  election  of 
Lorimer  so  far  as  I  could  learn. 

Q.  What  did  he  say? — A.  Well,  now,  I  couldn’t  exactly  tell  you 
what  he  said. 

Q.  Give  us  your  best  recollection  of  the  subject  of  the  conversation 
you  had  with  him  on  this  subject. — A.  I  couldn’t  give  you  the  exact 
conversation.  I  just  told  you  I  couldn’t  remember  what  I  said  to 
him. 

Q.  Well,  your  best  recollection  as  to  the  substance  of  the  conversa¬ 
tion. — A.  Well,  I  have  given  also  that;  that  was  about  the  sub¬ 
stance  of  it,  “Do  you  think  Lorimer  will  be  elected?”  One  might 
say  to  the  other,  “  Yes;  I  think  he  will ;  he  has  got  a  good  chance.” 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  you  were  going  to  vote  for  him? — A.  If  the 
conversation  took  place  between  us  I  certainly  did. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  559 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  he  was  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer? — A.  I  don’t 
:now  whether  he  did  or  did  not. 

Q.  Where  was  this  conversation  you  have  spoken  of? — A.  I  don’t 
[now  that  we  ever  had  one;  I  didn’t  say  that  we  had  one. 

Q.  Well,  if  you  did  have  one,  where  was  it? — A.  Eh? 

Q.  Well,  if  you  did  have  one  where  was  it? — A.  Well,  that  is 
•ather  a  difficult  question  to  answer. 

Q.  Yes ;  was  it  in  the  house,  on  the  sidewalk,  or  in  the  hotel  ? — A. 
Vny  conversation  of  that  kind  that  took  place,  they  usually  took  place 
ip  in  the  senate  chamber. 

Q.  Not  where  they  usually  took  place.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or 
lot  you  had  any  conversation  with  him  at  any  time  or  place  with 
•eference  to  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  I  can’t  say  that  I  did. 

Q.  And  you  can’t  say  that  you  did  not? — A.  No. 

Q.  Mr.  Broderick,  you  stated  on  direct  examination  that  you  made 
ip  your  mind  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  if  the  occasion  ever  presented 
tself  ? — A.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  correct,  is  it? — A.  Very. 

Q.  The  occasion  had  presented  itself  long  prior  to  the  26th  of  May, 
.909,  hadn’t  it? — A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Well,  you  weren’t  aware  that  it  had  not? — A.  What  do  you 
nean  by  that? 

Q.  Well,  you  didn’t  know  that  the  occasion  had  presented  itself 
irior  to  the  26th  of  May,  1909  ? — A.  I  didn’t ;  no. 

Q.  Mr.  Lorimer  had  been  balloted  for  for  some  time  before  the 
>6th  of  May,  1909,  had  he  not? — A.  I  think  there  were  some  votes 
for  Lorimer  for  some  time  prior  to  his  election ;  however,  that  is  a 
natter  the  records  will  show ;  I  am  not  very  positive  about  that. 

Q.  The  records  show  that  from  the  13th  day  of  May,  1909,  from 
ime  to  time,  Mr.  Lorimer  got  one  or  more  votes  down  to  the  26th  of 
May,  1909.  Is  that  your  recollection? — A.  I  presume  that  might  be 
'ight ;  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  But  prior  to  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  although  you  were  interested 
n  his  candidacy,  you  never  undertook  to  vote  for  him;  is  that  cor- 
•ect? — A.  No,  sir  ;  I  voted  for  a  different  man  most  every  day. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  up  your  mind  to  vote  for  Lorimer  on  the 
26th  of  May? — A.  When  did  I  make  up  my  mind? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  I  made  it  up  that  morning. 

Q.  Early? — A.  I  was  willing  to  vote  for  Lorimer  at  any  time  he 
was  going  to  let  his  name — that  his  name  was  going  to  be  made. 

Q.  He  was  going  to  let  his  name? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  that  is  the  first  time,  the  26tli  of  May,  1909,  that  you  were 
idvised  or  understood  that  Lorimer  was  to  permit  his  name  to  go 
before  the  joint  assembly  for  United  States  Senator ;  is  that  correct? — 
A,.  Oh,  no;  that  wasn’t  the  first  time  that  I  knew  he  was  a  candidate. 

Q.  When  did  you  know  for  the  first  time  that  you  were  going  to 
vote  for  him  on  the  26th  of  May? — A.  The  first  time  that  I  knew  he 
was  going  to  be  a  candidate  was  possibly  two  or  three  weeks,  or  some 
short  space  of  time,  prior  to  his  election.  John  M.  Smythe,  of  John 
M.’  Smythe  Furniture  Company,  came  over  to  me  one  morning  at  my 
place  of  business  and  asked  me - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Does  the  committee  think  that  is  material? 

Q.  Then  you  say  that  about  two  weeks  prior  to  the  26th  of  May  is 
about  the  first  time  that  you  knew  that  Lorimer  was  to  be  a  candidate 


560  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

for  United  States  Senator;  is  that  or  is  it  not  correct? — A.  Around 
about  that  time,  I  presume.  His  name  had  been  mentioned  for  weeks 
before  that,  but  only  mentioned. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  ascertain  that  he  was  an  avowed  candidate  for 
the  place  until  two  weeks  before  the  26th  of  May? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  correct  ? — A.  That  is  correct. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Broderick,  you  did  not  make  up  your  mind  to  vote  for 
him,  although  you  were  anxious  to  see  him  elected,  until  the  morning 
of  the  26th  of  May ;  is  that  right  ? — A.  I  told  you  I  would  have  voted 
for  Lorimer  at  any  time — at  any  time  I  thought  he  could  be  put  over. 

Q.  At  any  time  you  thought  he  could  be  put  over? — A.  At  any 
time  I  thought  he  could  win. 

Q.  But  you  didn't  make  up  your  mind  and  you  didn’t  think  or  did 
not  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  he  could  be  put  over  until  the  morn¬ 
ing  of  the  26th  of  May;  is  that  right? — A.  I  don’t  know  whether  he 
could  be  put  over  prior  to  that  or  not,  nor  I  didn’t  even  vote  for  him; 
I  didn’t  vote  for  him,  either. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  up  your  mind  on  the  26tli  of  May,  1909,  to 
vote  for  him  ?-^-A.  That  morning. 

Q.  1  ou  were  near  the  top  weren’t  you? — A.  I  was  the  first  on  the 
Democratic  side,  but  there  were - 

Q.  Just  a  moment,  now.  You  were  the  top,  the  first  one  whose 
name  was  called  on  the  roll  call,  on  the  Democratic  side  of  the  senate, 
and  the  senate  was  called  first,  was  it  not  ? — A.  Correct. 

Q.  Now,  wdio  prior  to  you  or  who  before  you  on  the  Democratic 
side  of  the  senate  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  before  your  name  was 
called? — A.  They  couldn’t  very  well  vote  for  him  before  I  voted  for 
him  because  they  called  alphabetically. 

Q.  You  voted  first? — A.  I  voted  when  it  came  my  turn;  the  Re¬ 
publicans  were  ahead  of  me. 

Q.  You  were  the  first  Democratic  member  of  the  joint  assembly 
that  voted  for  Lorimer  there? — A.  I  said  }Tes;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Broderick,  who  informed  you,  if  anyone,  that  Mr. 
Lorimer’s  name  was  to  be  voted  for  by  Democrats  on  the  morning 
of  the  26th  of  May,  1909  ? — A.  Mr.  Lorimer  himself  came  to  me  that 
morning  and  told  me  that  he  was  going  on,  that  he  was  going  to  be 
elected. 

Q.  And  who  told  you  that  the  Democrats  were  to  vote  for  Lorimer 
on  that  day  ? — A.  I  didn’t  say  airy  of  them  told  me ;  none  did  tell  me. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  if  anyone  told  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  if  anyone  told  you  that  it  was  going  to  be  put  over  on  that 
day? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  No  one? — A.  No. 

Q.  No  such  conversation? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How? — A.  No. 

Q.  It  was  simply  just  that  this  was  the  morning  that  your  vote 
for  Lorimer  would  count,  was  it? — A.  He  asked  me  to  vote  for  him 
that  morning. 

Q.  But  you  had  made  up  your  mind  to  vote  for  him  before? — 
A.  I  did,  yes.  I  would  have  voted  for  him  at  any  time. 

Q.  No  one  had  asked  you  to  vote  for  him  before  that  morning 
had  they? — A.  Sir? 

Q.  No  one  had  asked  you  to  vote  for  him  that  morning? — A.  I 
said  yes. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  561 

Q.  Besides  the  John  M.  Smythe  Company? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  John  M.  Smythe  was  not  a  member  of  the  legislature,  was 
e? — A.  I  had  been  asked  by  a  good  many  men  to  vote  for  Lorimer. 
Q.  I  asked  you  if  anyone  asked  you  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — 
..  I  told  you  Mr.  Lorimer  himself  asked  me. 

Q.  That  was  the  morning  of  the  26th  of  May? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  No  one  knew  that  so  far  as  you  know? — A.  I  don’t  know  what 
thers  knew. 

Q.  Mr.  Lorimer  did  not  know  you  were  going  to  vote  for  him, 
id  he? — A.  Why  of  course  he  knew  I  was  going  to  vote  for  him. 

Q.  He  knew  that  long  before  the  26th  of  May,  didn’t  he? — A.  I 
resume  he  did ;  yes. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Broderick,  did  you  know  of  any  financial  transactions 
ith  reference  to  the  election  of  United  States  Senator? — A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  Never  heard  of  any? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  place? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  well  acquainted  with  the  situation  at  Springfield? — 
What  do  you  mean  by  that? 

Q.  I  mean  you  were  in  close  attendance  all  the  time? — A.  Why, 
attended  as  much  as  I  could  there. 

Q.  You  never  heard  of  Holstlaw  being  in  your  place  of  business 
t  all  prior  to  this  day  in  June,  1909,  did  you? — A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t 
fink  I  did.  no. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Holstlaw  was  not  a  drinking  man,  was  he  ? — A.  I  don’t 

now. 

Q.  You  never  saw  him  take  a  drink? — A.  I  don’t  know  that  I  did; 
wouldn’t  say  I  did  or  did  not. 

Q.  What  time  do  you  usually  go  to  your  place  of  business  ? — A.  All 
le  way  from  9  to  10  o’clock. 

Q.  And  you  were  usually  how  late  ? — A.  Well,  I  presume  until  12, 
imetimes  later. 

Q.  Twelve  o’clock  at  night? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Broderick,  the — I  withdraw  that.  This  morning  of 
fie  26th  of  May,  1909,  the  two  houses  met  in  joint  session,  didn’t 
iiev?  You  remember  that,  to  vote  for  United  States  Senator? — 
l.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  senate  filed  over  to  the  house? — A.  They  filed  over  there 
lany  mornings. 

Q.  You  were  very  anxious  to  get  away  from  Springfield,  weren’t 
ou? — A.  Well,  I  was  never  wanting  to  stay  there  more  than  I 

ould  help. 

Q.  You  were  very  anxious  to  get  away  from  there  this  morning  of 
he  26th? — A.  What  do  you  mean? 

Q.  You  were  anxious  to  leave  Springfield  and  have  the  joint  ses- 
ion  determine  their  business? — A.  Not  any  more  than  I  was  any 
ther  morning. 

Q.  Weren’t  the  Democrats  and  Republicans  ready  to  vote  for  al- 
lost  anyone  to  be  ready  to  leave  Springfield  and  wind  up  the  joint 
ession? — A.  Not  particularly,  no. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  whether  there  was  any  anxiety  on  the  part  of 
he  members  of  the  joint  house  to  leave  Springfield  ? — A.  I  know  they 
id  not  have  a  desire  to  stay  there  if  they  felt  like  I  did. 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 36 


562  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Weren’t  the  Democrats  ready  to  go  to  any  good  Republican  or 
any  good  Democrat  whom  they  could  elect  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
winding  up  the  session  ? — A.  There  was  one  Republican  that  I  voted 
for.  Mr.  Lorimer  was  the  only  one. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  whether  or  not  you  had  not  heard  a  general 
discussion  that  the  joint  assembly  were  tired  with  balloting;  they  had 
been  balloting  since  January,  1909,  and  they  were  ready  to  vote  for 
anyone,  any  good  man,  Republican  or  Democrat,  if  they  could  just 
elect  a  United  States  Senator,  and  go  home;  was  not  there  a  discus¬ 
sion  of  that  kind? — A.  I  couldn’t  tell  you  that. 

Q.  Will  you  say  there  was? — A.  Why  I  should  say  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  And  you  never  heard  that  discussed  down  there,  among  your 
fellow  Democrats,  or  your  friends,  the  Republicans.  Didn't  you  hear 
that  discussion  ? — A.  They  were  all  anxious  to  go  home. 

Q.  And  they  discussed  that? — A.  Not  that  I  noticed  to  any  extent. 

Q.  That  was  not  the  subject  of  discussion,  was  it? — A.  It  might 
be  discussed  with  others. 

Q.  And  you  never  heard  it,  though? — A.  Not  very  much,  no. 

Q.  It  was  just  like  any  other  assembly,  was  it,  filed  in  and  filed 
out,  and  down  to  business,  attending  to  business,  and  then  on  the  next 
day? — A.  Then  that  was  about  the  routine? 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Holstlaw - A.  Pardon  me. 

Q.  No ;  I  apologize  to  the  other  man. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  may  be  an  affinity  there. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  Mr.  Broderick,  did  you  ever  know  of  Mr. 
Holtslaw  to  be  engaged  in  any  illegal  transaction  at  Springfield?— 
A.  No.  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  know  of  Mr.  Holtslaw  to  be  in  any  transaction 
in  Springfield  involving  legislative  matters  that  you  were  connected 
with? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  anyone  ever  give  you  any  money  to  hold  for  Holtslaw 
or  in  which  he  was  interested? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  Mr.  Holtslaw  came  into  your  place  in  June,  1909,  on 
this  occasion  that  you  have  referred  to,  what  did  you  say  to  him? — A. 
Well,  now,  I  forget  what  was  said.  Not  any  more  than  I  suppose 
44  Good  morning  ”  or  something  to  that  extent. 

Q.  You  were  not  surprised  to  see  him  there,  were  you? — A.  Why 
yes.  I  was  surprised  to  see  him. 

Q.  You  were  surprised  to  see  him? — A.  Some  surprised;  yes. 

Q.  You  were  surprised? — A.  Not  very  much. 

Q.  You  had  never  seen  him  in  a  saloon  before  had  you? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where? — A.  Springfield. 

Q.  I  mean  in  Chicago  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  much  surprised  or  not  very  much  surprised? — 
A.  I  am  not  surprised  to  find  people  in  my  place. 

Q.  Where  is  your  place? — A.  Halstead  and  Madison. 

Q.  How  far  from  the  Auditorium  Annex,  where  we  now  are  ? — A. 
I  should  judge  about  a  mile  and  three-quarters. 

Q.  How  far  from  the  court-house,  the  county  building? — A.  It  is 
a  little  less  than  a  mile. 

Q.  A  little  less  than  a  mile? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  on  the  south  side  or  west  side? — A.  On  the  west  side. 

Q.  You  have  to  cross  the  river  to  get  there? — A.  You  have. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  563 

Q.  How  far  from  the  railroad  station,  from  the  Illinois  Central 
Railroad  station? — A.  Well,  that  should  be,  I  should  judge,  a  mile 
ind  a  half. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Broderick,  when  Mr.  Holtslaw  came  in  your  place  of 
msiness  you  said  the  word  “  How  do  you  do  ?  ” — A.  I  presume  that 
s  what  I  said. 

Q.  Did  you  say  “  Have  a  drink?  ” — A.  I  don’t  think  so. 

Q.  Did  he  take  a  drink? — A.  Now,  you  are  getting  around  to  that 
‘orner  again. 

Q.  Did  he  take  a  drink? — A.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  to  con- 
iul  t  with  my  counsel,  if  you  haven’t  any  objection. 

Q.  That  is  the  way  it  started  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  a  very  simple  question  asked,  if  he  took 
i  drink. 

A.  Well,  I  will  say,  yes,  he  took  a  drink. 

By  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  You  will  say  that  and  don’t  remember  whether  he  did  or  not? — 
A  I  didn’t  say  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  he  took  a  drink  ? — A.  I  do,  sir. 

Q.  You  remember  he  did  take  a  drink,  do  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  what  did  he  drink  ? — A.  I  couldn’t  tell  you. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  him  when  he  was  taking  a  drink?  Did 
mu  take  one? — A.  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  anything  about  the  transaction? — A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  what  he  was  there  for? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  he  was  there  for? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  pay  for  the  drink? — A.  That  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  anything  about  the  occurrence  at  all? — 
A  No. 

Q.  How  long  was  he  in  your  place? — A.  Possibly  a  half  or  three- 
[uarters  of  an  hour. 

Q.  That  long? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  he  talked  to  no  one  but  you,  eh  ? — A.  I  refuse  to  answer. 

Q.  On  what  ground? — A.  On  the  ground  that  I  might  give  evi- 
lence  or  be  compelled  to  give  evidence  against  myself. 

Q.  Compelled  to  give  evidence  against  yourself? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  early  in  the  morning  your  place  is  quite  full,  is  it  not? — 
V.  Not  all  the  time.  I  wish  it  was. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  empty  or  full  on  this  occasion? — A.  I  don’t  know; 
here  were  people  in  there. 

Q.  Always  people  in  and  out  that  early  in  the  morning? — A.  Yes; 
ilways  people  in  there. 

Q.  If  you  wrote  to  Mr.  Broderick  to  come  and  see  you,  did  you  fix 
hat  time? — A.  What  did  you  say,  sir? 

Q.  If  you  wrote  to  Mr.  Broderick  to  come  and  see  you,  did  you  fix 
he  time? — A.  Wrote  to  myself? 

Q.  I  say  did  you  write  to  him — Holstlaw — did  you  fix  the  time? — 
.  refuse  to  answer. 

Q.  On  what  ground  ? — A.  On  the  ground  I  might  be  compelled  to 
five  evidence  against  myself. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  to  you  when  he  came  in? — A.  I  don’t  re- 

nember. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  that  at  all,  do  you? — A.  No. 


564  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  you  whether  you  had  the  money  for  him? — A.  I 
don't  think  he  did ;  no. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? — A.  Well,  I  told  you  I  don’t  remember  what 
he  said. 

Q.  How  do  you  remember  that  he  did  not  ask  you  for  the  money 
if  you  don’t  remember  what  was  said? — A.  I  know  he  didn’t  ask  me; 
them  are  instances  where  you  would  remember. 

Q,.  I  beg  pardon. — A.  You  can  not  very  well  forget  about  a  man 
asking  }7ou  for  money,  can  you?  I  know  I  don't  always  forget  it. 
He  didn’t  ask  me  for  money. 

Q.  He  asked  nothing  about  money,  eh  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  are  sure  of  that? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  didn't  ask  }7ou  where  the  money  was  or  an3Tthing  pertaining 
to  mone}7  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  now,  if  Mr.  Holstlaw  says  that  you  gave  him  $2,500  in 
currency  in  large  bills  on  the  16th  of  June,  can  }7ou  explain  to  this 
committee  what  object  he  would  have  in  putting  that  on  you? — A. 
Well,  I  will  tell  }7ou  what  his  object  was,  as  far  as  I  can. 

Q.  Just  tell  us. — A.  He  got  indicted  in  Sangamon  County. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  what? — A.  He  got  indicted  down  in  San¬ 
gamon  Count}7.  After  he  got  indicted  he  got  into  the  hands  of  Mr. 
Lorimer's  enemies,  I  presume,  and  they  got  him  into  the  lawyer’s  office. 
He  was  sent  to  a  firm  of  lawyers,  and,  as  I  understand  it,  they  forced 
him  to  making  a  confession.  Well,  he  made  a  confession,  anyway, 
and  by  making  this  confession  implicated  somebody,  implicated 
somebod}’  as  one  Avho  had  paid  out  or  received  some  money  in  electing 
Mr.  Lorimer.  They  indicted  me.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  was  the 
easiest  thing  in  the  world  for  me  to  pass  it  on  to  the  other  fellow, 
but  I  couldn’t  very  well  afford  to  do  that  after  I  was  indicted — pass 
it  on  to  somebody  who  Avould  have  just  as  much  difficulty  of  getting 
out  of  it  as  I  might,  who  knows  nothing  about  it.  Just  the  same 
thing;  the  easiest  thing  in  the  world  for  me  to  pass  it  up  to  some¬ 
body  else  that  knew  just  as  much  about  it  as  the  man  wdio  is  in  Cali¬ 
fornia. 

Mr.  Austrian.  As  much  about  it  as  you  do,  eh,  sir? — A.  As  much 
about  it  as  what? 

Q.  As  }Tou  do. — A.  I  didn’t  say  that,  did  I  ? 

Q.  I  am  asking  }'ou — to  pass  it  to  somebody  who  knew  as  much 
about  it  as  }Tou  do? — A.  Who  didn’t  know  any  more  about  it  than 
that. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Broderick,  you  had  never  had  any  falling  out  with 
Mr.  Holstlaw,  had  }’ou  ? — A.  Not  a  bit. 

Q.  No  words,  no  animosities,  and  no  feeling  between  you? — A. 
Not  a  bit. 

Q.  Now,  if  this  is  the  reason  that  you  state  that  Holstlaw7  was 
indicted  and  Holstlaw'  wmnted  to  pass  it  up  to  some  one,  why  won't 
you  tell  us  the  object  of  }Tour  writing  to  Holstlaw,  if  you  did  write 
to  him,  to  come  and  see  }Tou  ? — A.  I  refuse  to  answer  the  question. 

Q.  On  what  ground? — A.  On  the  same  ground  I  stated. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Frazier.  I  want  to  ask  a  question. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  565 

Q.  Mr.  Broderick,  what  was  Mr.  Holstlaw  indicted  for  in  San¬ 
gamon  County? — A.  He  was  in  the  furniture  deal — some  furniture 
for  the  statehouse ;  it  was  desks  and  chairs. 

Q.  It  had  no  connection,  then - A.  No  connection  whatsoever. 

Q.  With  the  election  of  United  States  Senator? — A.  Not  a  bit. 

Q.  Well,  how  do  you  connect,  then,  his  indictment — the  connection 
of  the  furniture  -matter — with  United  States  Senator? — A.  Well, 
after  he  was  indicted  for  perjury — after  he  wTas  indicted  for  perjury 
be  was  taken  to  an  attorney’s  office. 

Q.  You  are  stating  now  wffiat  you  have  heard? — A.  It  is  only 
what  I  heard. 

Q.  It  was  only  with  respect  to  the  purchase  of  some  furniture  for 
the  statehouse? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  had  no  connection  with  the  election  of  United  States  Sen- 
xtor? — A.  Not  the  least. 

Q.  Now,  you  detailed,  as  I  understand  it,  an  alleged  conversation 
with  Mr.  Holstlaw  down  at  Springfield,  and  then  you  stated,  if  I  do 
not  disremember,  that  you  was  not  sure  you  had  a  conversation  with 
bim.  Now,  will  you  tell  us  whether  as  a  matter  of  fact  you  did 
have  a  conversation  with  him,  in  which  conversation  you  stated,  in 
substance,  “We  are  going  to  put  it  over,”  or  “put  Lorimer  over 
to-morrow  ?  ” — A.  I  do  not  remember  having  that  conversation  with 
Mr.  Holstlaw. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  whether  you  actually  ever  had  that  con¬ 
versation  or  not? — A.  No;  I  don’t  think  I  did;  I  am  sure  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  are  positive  now  you  did  not  have  that  conversation? — 
A.  No;  I  am  sure  I  did  not  have  any  such  conversation  with  Mr. 
Holstlaw. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  discuss  the  election  of  Senator  with  Mr.  Holst¬ 
law? — A.  I  do  not  think  I  did;  I  do  not  remember  that  I  did. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  that  you  ever  discussed  with  him  at  all? — 
A.  Not  any  further  than  I  might  say  “It  looks,”  or  he  might  say 
■‘It  looks  like  Lorimer  could  be  elected.” 

Q.  Was  there  any  caucus  or  gathering  together  of  Democrats,  any 
conferences  of  any  kind  of  Democrats,  about  seeing  whether  or  not 
there  could  be  a  combination  or  arrangement  by  which  all  of  the 
Democrats  or  any  one  faction  of  the  Democrats  could  be  induced  to 
vote  for  William  Lorimer  on  the  26th  of  Mav  or  any  other  time? — 
A.  There  never  was  any  gathering  of  that  kind  that  I  participated 
in  or  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Was  there  any  meeting  of  any  number  of  what  is  known  as 
the  “  Browne  faction  ”  of  the  Democrats  to  talk  over  and  agree  upon 
i  man  that  you  could  vote  for  other  than  a  Democrat? — A.  As  far 
as  I  was  concerned  in  the  house  I  do  not  think  I  visited  the  house 
luring  all  of  my  time  in  Springfield  other  than  when  we  went  there  to 
vote  for  United  States  Senator. 

Q.  Was  there  any  such  meeting  or  talk  among  the  senators? — A. 
No;  not  among  the  senators,  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Was  there,  as  far  as  you  know,  among  the  Democrats? — A.  No. 

Q.  How  did  it  happen,  then,  that  everybody  seemed  to  reach  the 
^ame  conclusion  on  the  26th  of  May,  that  you  all  voted  for  Lori¬ 
mer? — A.  That,  I  am  sure,  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Can  you  explain  how  all  of  the  fifty-odd  Democrats  who 
voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  that  day  reached  the  conclusion  that  that  was 


566  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

the  time  and  place  and  day  and  hour  to  cast  their  votes  for  him  if 
there  had  not  been  any  understanding  or  talk  or  agreement  about 
it? — A.  There  was  no  understanding  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  You  had  not  attended  any  conference  or  meeting  or  caucus  or 
anything? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  no  conversation  with  anybody  about  it  except  Mr. 
Lorimer  himself? — A.  Well,  it  was  noised  around,  you  know,  it 
was  noised  around  that  morning,  there  was  an  understanding,  that 
“  we  are  going  to  elect  Lorimer  this  morning.” 

Q.  Now,  who  started  the  “  We  are  going  to  put  Lorimer  over.” 
“  We  are  going  to  elect  him  this  morning.”  There  must  have  been 
some  sort  of  a  beginning  to  the  thing,  to  have  gotten  you  to  the  same 
conclusion.  How  did  you  reach  the  conclusion  that  “  We  were  going  to 
do  it  that  morning  ?  ” — A.  Just  as  I  stated  before,  Mr.  Lorimer  asked 
me  that  morning. 

Senator  Gamble.  Did  Senator  Lorimer  ask  you  that  morning  to 
vote  for  him  that  day? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Senator  Frazier: 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  there  had  been  any  understanding  that  other 
people,  other  Democrats,  were  going  to  vote  for  him  that  day  ?  Did 
he  tell  you  there  had  been  any  understanding  or  agreement  or  ar¬ 
rangement  by  which - A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  By  which  certain  people  were  going  to  vote  for  him  ? — A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  You  had  had  no  conference  with  anybody  prior  to  that  to  de¬ 
termine  the  question  that  you  would  vote  for  him  on  that  morning?— 
A.  I  had  not. 

Senator  Frazier.  Read  that  question,  please. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  No,  sir; I  did  not. 

Q.  When  you  went  into  the  joint  session  had  you  had  a  conference 
with  Senator  Lorimer,  or  did  you  have  it  after  the  joint  session? — A. 
No,  sir;  it  was  before. 

Q,  It  was  before? — A.  Long  before. 

Q.  What  time  that  day  and  where? — A.  Well,  it  was  certainly 
after  I  got  to  the  senate  chamber.  I  went  up  at  a  quarter  after  9, 
somewhere  around  there. 

Q.  Had  you  had  any  talk  with  the  minority  leader,  Mr.  Browne, 
with  reference  to  voting  for  William  Lorimer  on  that  day? — A.  I  do 
not  think  I  exchanged  three  words  in  my  whole  life  with  Mr.  Browne 
while  at  Springfield.  All  the  time  I  have  been  with  Browne  was  in 
one  of  these  rooms  here.  I  never  knew  Mr.  Browne  much. 

Q.  Did  you  belong  to  what  is  known  as  the  Browne  faction? — A. 
We  had  no  factions  like  that  in  the  senate. 

Q.  Browne  wras  the  leader  in  the  house? — A.  Browne  was  in  the 
house. 

Q.  You  were  not  divided  in  the  senate  like  they  were  in  the  house, 
you  Democrats? — A.  No,  sir;  there  were  not  many  of  us  there,  and  it 
was  easy  to  get  along. 

Q.  Mr.  Broderick,  I  believe  the  legislature  adjourned  about  the  4th 
or  5th  of  June. — A.  I  guess  about  that  time. 

Q.  The  record  will  show — merely  to  refresh  your  recollection 
about  it.  How  long  after  that  was  it  when  Mr.  Holstlaw  came  to 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  567 

you — Mr.  Holtslaw  came  into  your  place  of  business? — A.  Well,  I 
-ould  not  really  tell  you  how  long  it  was — I  should  judge  in  June, 
iome  time  in  the  month  of  June. 

Q.  Do  you  recall  that  it  was  on  the  16th  day  of  June? — A.  No;  I  do 
not,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  state  that  it  was  not  on  the  16th  day  of  June? — A. 
No;  I  do  not. 

Q.  Now,  you  have  declined  to  answer  whether  you  notified  Mr. 
Holtslaw  to  come  to  your  place  of  business? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Whether  you  wrote  to  him  or  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  still  decline  to  answer  that? — A.  I  do,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Holtslaw  write  to  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  did  not? — A.  No,  sir;  not  that  I — not  that  I  could  recall. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Holstlaw  notify  you,  before  he  came  there,  when  he 
was  coming? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  on  the  day  Mr.  Holstlaw  came  to  your  place 
of  business,  when  you  say  he  came  in  and  you  were  not  there,  where 
were  you  at  that  time  ? — A.  It  happened  I  did  not  get  up  very  early 
that  morning.  I  was  home. 

Q.  Had  he  been  waiting  for  you  when  you  came  in? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  want  to  see  you  about  something? — A.  Possibly  so,  a 
sociable  call,  which  it  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  he  had  been  waiting? — A.  I  do  not,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  say  howT  long  he  had  been  waiting? — A.  He  did  not,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anybody  else  say  how  long  he  had  been  waiting? — A.  I  do 
not  remember  that  he  said  that. 

Q.  Did  anybody  else  tell  you  how  long  he  had  been  waiting? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  a  back  office  or  room  adjoining  your  place  of  busi¬ 
ness? — A.  No,  sir;  a  front  office. 

Q.  You  have  a  front  office? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  and  Mr.  Holstlaw  go  in  that  office? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  he  remain  during  the  time,  what  part  of  your  place 
during  the  entire  time  he  was  at  your  place  of  business? — A.  Mostly 
down  at  the  lower  end  of  the  bar. 

Q.  In  the  barroom? — A.  In  the  barroom;  yes,  sir. 

Q,  Was  anyone  else  present  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who? — A.  I  refuse  to  answer. 

Q.  Why  do  you  refuse  to  answer  that? — A.  Because  I  might  be 
compelled  to  give  testimony  that  would  injure  myself. 

Q.  You  decline,  then,  to  state  whether  anyone  else  was  present 
there  in  your  place  on  that  day  when  Holstlaw  was  there? — A.  I  am 
willing  to  state  that  there  were  several  people  there,  but  you  asked 
me  who  they  were.  That  is  what  I  am  refusing  to  answer. 

Q.  You  state  there  were  several  people  there,  but  you  decline  to 
state  who  they  were  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  your  barkeeper  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Holstlaw  go  with  you  into  your  office  at  the  time  he 
was  there? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  remain  in  your  place  of  business? — A.  I  pre¬ 
sume  a  half  or  three-quarters  of  an  hour. 

Q.  A  half  or  three-quarters  of  an  hour? — A.  A  half  or  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour. 


568  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  did  you  go  out  with  him  when  he  left? — A.  I  did  not,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  haVe  any  occasion  to  have  any  business  dealings 
with  Mr.  Holstlaw  of  any  kind? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  business  dealings  with  him? — A.  No, 
sir ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Did  }7ou  ever  notify  him  that  you  wanted  to  see  him  on  any 
business  matter? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  notify  him  that  you  wanted  to  see  him  on  any 
matter? — A.  No,  sir;  not  on  any  matter. 

Q.  Not  on  any  matter.  Did  you  ever  pay  any  money  to  any  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  legislature  for  any  purpose? — A.  Pardon  me.  Will  you 
read  the  last  question? 

Q.  Read  the  last  one. — A.  Not  the  last  one,  but  the  one  before  that. 

(Question  read  as  follows:) 

Did  you  ever  notify  him  that  you  wanted  to  see  him  on  any  matter? 

The  Witness.  Well,  now,  that  is  one  of  the  questions  I  refused  to 
answer  a  while  ago. 

Q.  You  have  already  answered  it. — A.  I  know,  but  I  ask  leave  to 
correct  that  or  withdraw  that  answer. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  withdraw  your  answer  to  the  question? — 
A.  I  desire  to  withdraw  the  answer  to  that  question ;  yes. 

Senator  Frazier.  Read  the  last  question  to  him. 

(Question  read  as  follows:) 

Did  you  ever  pay  any  money  to  any  member  of  the  legislature  for  any 
purpose? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  the  jack  pot  that  has  been  talked  a  good 
deal  about  in  this  hearing  while  you  were  down  at  Springfield? — A. 
Nothing  any  more  than  I  might  read  in  the  newspapers  about  it. 

Q.  Do  }tou  know  anything  about  any  fund  having  been  contributed 
or  paid  by  anybody  that  was  paid  to  members  of  the  legislature? — 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  W  as  Mr.  Holstlaw  in  }7our  office,  or  in  your  place  of  business,  at 
a  subsequent  date  to  the  one  3’ou  have  mentioned? — A.  Not  that  I 
remember. 

Q.  Was  he  there  in  July? — A.  I  do  not  remember  but  seeing  him 
there  but  once;  I  think  in  the  month  of  June. 

Senator  Frazier.  Read  the  question  and  answer. 

(Question  and  answer  read.) 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  of  seeing  him  there  in  July7? — A.  No. 
sir ;  I  have  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  pay  him,  as  I  understand  you,  $700  in  July? — A. 
No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Senator  Frazier.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  desire  to  ask  a  question. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  on  the  day  he  was  elected  because 
he  asked  you  to  vote  for  him  on  that  day? — A.  No,  sir;  I  would  vote 
for  him  anvwav,  if  he  had  not  asked  me. 

Q.  Would  you  have  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  a  week  prior  to  that 
time  had  he  requested  you  to  do  so? — A.  I  would  two  months  before 
that,  because  I  knew  yve  had  no  chance  with  our  man. 

Q.  Answer  as  to  the  week,  that  is  sufficient. — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  569 

Senator  Johnston.  One  moment,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  want  to  ask 
[r.  Broderick  one  question.  When  the  senate  went  over  to  the  house 
1  the  joint  session  to  ballot  for  United  States  Senator,  did  you  hear 
Ir.  Browne  make  a  speech  on  that  occasion? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  before  the  voting  took  place? — A.  No,  sir;  I  think  it 
as  when  it  came  his  turn  to  vote. 

Q.  When  it  was  his  turn  to  vote? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  would  not  be  sure  about  that,  but  I  think  that  is  it. 
Senator  Burrows.  It  is  impossible  for  the  reporters  to  hear  a  word 
ou  say. — A.  I  am  sorry  for  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  are  all  sorry.  There  is  no  reason  why  you 
an  not  spead  loud. — A.  When  it  was — before  the  voting  took  place, 
ecause  the  senate  had  already  voted  before  it  came  to  the  house — I 
o  not  think — if  I  remember  right,  I  think  it  was  when  his  name  was 
ailed,  and  it  got  down  to  the  B’s  that  he  stood  upon  the  floor. 
Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  ask  a  question? 

Senator  Burrows.  I  want  to  ask  a  question  first. 

Q.  Mr.  Broderick,  did  you  leave  your  saloon  during  the  time  Mr. 
lolstlaw  was  there? — A.  I  did  not,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  leave  during  the  time  you  were  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  the  close  of  the  conference  or  at  the  end  of  the  call? — A. 
res ;  he  stayed  a  little  while. 

Q.  You  had  no  conversation  with  him  that  day  outside  of  the 
aloon? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  go  into  your  private  office? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  With  him? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  go  with  him  anywhere  else  outside  of  the  bar? — A. 
sTo,  sir. 

Q.  While  he  was  in  there  were  there  others  in  the  room? — A. 
'here  was,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  barroom? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  A  large  number  or  a  small  number? — A.  There  were  quite  a 
ew  people  in  there;  possibly  10  or  15  people  in  there,  I  should  judge. 

Q.  What  time  of  the  day  was  it? — A.  I  think  it  was  around 
ialf-past  10  in  the  forenoon. 

Q.  The  forenoon  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Holstlaw  at  all? — A. 
Vith  who  ? 

Q.  With  Holstlaw. — A.  While  in  the  saloon? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Why,  we  talked  along,  passed  some  jokes,  and  one 
hing  and  another,  as  you  usually  do  in  a  saloon. 

Q.  But  you  can  not  remember  any  of  the  conversation? — A.  No, 
do  not;  I  could  not  really  tell  you  what  the  conversation  was;  I 
lo  not  remember  it  now. 

Q.  How  large  is  this  room ;  the  size  of  the  room  ? — A.  It  is  200 
eet  long.  It  runs  from  one  street  through  to  the  other.  It  is  all 
•pen ;  no  partitions  or  anything  in  it,  other  than  the  one  in  the  front, 
cross  the  front. 

Q.  Across  the  front? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  back  of  that — it  is  all  open  back  of  that? — A.  All  open  clean 
o  the  other  street. 

Q.  To  the  other  street? — A.  All  open  clean  to  the  other  street. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  private  conversation  with  Mr.  Holstlaw  at 
hat  time? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 


570  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Gamble.  While  Mr.  Holstlaw  was  in  the  saloon,  and  dur 
ing  all  the  time  he  was  there,  you  mean  to  state  there  were  othei 
individuals  in  the  saloon? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  During  all  of  that  time  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  present  ? — A.  And  present. 

Senator  Heyburn.  You  are  not  willing  to  state  who  they  were?— 
A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Broderick,  wouldn’t  that  be  very  useful  hen 
to  corroborate  your  statement  that  you  did  not  have  any  private 
conversation  with  Mr.  Holstlaw,  if  you  let  us  know  who  they  are  s( 
we  may  summon  them? — A.  Yes;  but  results  might  come  from  thai 
later  on. 

Q.  Where  were  you  last  week,  Mr.  Broderick ;  were  you  at  Spring 
field  ? — A.  I  was,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  return  from  Springfield  ? — A.  I  left  on  the 
12.20  at  night  and  got  in  about  8 — 7  or  8 — in  the  morning.  The  trail 
was  an  hour  late,  I  remember  that. 

Q.  What  day  of  the  week  ? — A.  That  was  on  Thursday  last. 

Q.  On  Thursday.  Where  were  you  from  that  time"  until  Sun¬ 
day? — A.  From  that  time  until  Sunday?  Now,  Thursday,  when  1 
got  home,  I  possibly  got  home  about  12  o’clock,  and  came  down  to  my 
place  of  business,  jumped  on  a  car,  went  over  to  the  Brunswick- 
Balke  over  here  on  Wabash  avenue,  and  bought  seven  pool  tables  that 
are  not  delivered  yet,  but  will  be  delivered  ten  days  afterwards. 
After  closing  that  deal  I  went  back  home. 

Q.  Were  you  in  your  place  of  business  during  any  part  of  the  day* 
Friday  or  Saturday? — A.  I  was  there  Saturday;  I  was  not  then 
Friday.  I  was  downtown  most  of  the  day  Friday. 

Q.  Were  you  there  Saturday  any  part  of  the  day  ? — A.  I  was,  sir 

Q.  How  much  of  the  day? — A.  Well,  it  was  late  in  the  afternoon 
when  I  got  there — in  the  afternoon  about  5  o’clock. 

Q.  Were  you  there  at  night?— A.  Yes,  sir;  all  night  until  12 
o’clock. 

Q.  Have  you  learned  that  a  subpoena  has  been  issued  from  this 
committee  to  you  to  appear  and  testify  ? — A.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  learn  that? — A.  I  learned  that  on — I  learned 
that  on  Friday. 

Q.  On  Friday? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  dodge  the  officer? — A.  I  did  not,  sir;  I  did  not. 
sir;  as  soon  as  I  discovered  that  fact  I  tried  to  communicate  with 
my  lawyer,  although  he  had  told  me  when  I  was  leaving  Springfield 
that  he  would  not  be  home  possibly  before  Friday,  and  I  called  up 
his  home;  I  called  up  his  home  and  his  wife  said — that  was  Saturday 
morning — and  his  wife  said  he  had  got  home  last  night,  or  Friday 
morning  it  was.  I  think  it  was  Saturday  morning  I  went  over  and 
waited  in  his  office  until  10  o’clock.  I  went  out  and  went  into  a  few 
places,  and  around  12  o’clock  I  went  to  the  Union  restaurant  and  had 
dinner  there.  I  came  back  and  went  up  in  his  office  again  and  re¬ 
mained  there  until  about  3  o’clock,  and  a  little  later  than  3  o’clock  he 
came  in. 

Q.  Was  that  on  Saturday? — A.  That  was  on  Saturday,  and  then 
he  called  up — he  also  knew  about  the  subpoena  at  that  time — he  called 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  571 

ip  the  marshal  and  told  him  that  I  would  be  over  here  Monday  morn- 
ng  at  10  o’clock. 

Q.  Was  that  Saturday  or  Sunday  that  he  did  that? — A.  That  was 
Saturday. 

Senator  Frazier.  All  right;  that  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Broderick,  at  the  time  of  this  meeting  at 
mur  saloon,  can  you  give  the  committee  any  idea  whether  there  were 
nany  people  in  there? — A.  Well,  there  must  have  been  10  or  12  at 
east,  that  is  at  the  bar,  and  there  may  be  20  or  30  farther  back  play- 
ng  billiards  or  pool,  something  like  that,  possibly,  that  would  be  in 

here.  . 

Q.  There  was  a  billiard  room — a  pool  room  in  connection  with  the 

iar? — A.  Billiard  tables;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tend  bar  yourself? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  stood  at  the  bar,  at 
he  side  of  the  bar. 

Q.  You  stood  at  the  side  of  the  bar? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  and  Mr.  Holstlaw  withdraw  from  the  rest  of  the  people 
hat  were  in  there  at  any  time  and  go  to  another  part  of  the  sa- 
oon? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No,  sir.  • 

Q.  And  had  no  private  conversation? — A.  No,  sir;  we  had  not. 
Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  ask  a  question,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Senator  Paynter  asked  you - 

Senator  Paynter.  No;  I  believe  it  was  some  one  else. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  beg  your  pardon;  I  mean  Senator  Frazier  asked 
pou  what  Mr.  Holstlaw  was  indicted  for  at  Springfield,  and  you  said 
for  a  furniture  deal? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  afterwards  said  that  he  was  indicted  for  perjury? — A. 
That  is  what  he  was  charged  with,  I  understand. 

Q.  He  was  charged  with  perjury? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  he  was  charged  with  perjury  in  connection  with  a  furniture 
deal,  wasn’t  he? — A.  That  is  the  way  I  understand  it. 

Q.  Yes.  He  was  not  indicted  for  the  furniture  deal,  but  indicted 
for  perjury  in  connection  with  the  furniture  deal? — A.  Tes,  sir. 

Q.  Yes.  That  is  all — just  one  minute.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr. 
Holstlaw  was  indicted  for  perjury  in  connection  with  that,  and  also 
indicted  for  conspiracy? — A.  I  do  not,  sir. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  anything  about  that? — A.  No. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Don’t  you  remember,  Mr.  Broderick,  on  the  26th 
of  May,  1909,  that  Browne  asked  the  unanimous  consent,  when  the 
roll  call  of  the  joint  session  was  first  had,  and  before  any  balloting 
was  had,  asked  for  suspension  of  the  rules  and  for  leave  to  make  a 
speech  on  the  first  roll  call? — A.  Before  they  started  to  call  the  roll? 

Q.  Before  they  started  balloting  for  United  States  Senator? 
There  were  two  roll  calls,  weren’t  there?  One  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  whether  or  not  a  quorum  was  present? — A.  1  es,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  right? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  the  second  roll  call? — A.  Yes,  sir— the  second  roll 
call,  you  mean?  He  was  elected  on  the  first  ballot. 

Q.  Yes;  but  there  were  two  roll  calls  in  the  joint  session? — A.  Yes, 

sir. 


572  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  One  for  a  quorum  and  one  for  balloting? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Didivt  Browne  make  a  speech  on  roll  call? — A.  Well,  now,  ] 
would  not  be  sure  whether  he  made  it  on  roll  call  or  whether  aftei 
the  voting  commenced.  The  records  will  show  that;  that  is  easih 
ascertained ;  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  You  do  not  want  this  committee  to  believe  that  you  state  froir 
your  own  knowledge  when  he  made  his  speech  in  the  house  that  day 
do  you  ? — A.  I  told  you  I  was  not  sure,  but  I  thought  he  made  it 
when  it  came  his  turn  to  vote. 

Q.  Mr.  Broderick,  wffiere  did  you  stop  on  your  way  down  to  th( 
saloon  on  the  day  you  met  Holstlaw  ? — A.  I  did  not  stop  until  I  gol 
to  my  place  of  business. 

Q.  You  have  a  positive  remembrance  of  that  fact,  have  you;  yov 
remember  that  positively? — A.  When  I  leave  home  in  the  morning 
that  is  the  first  place  I  go,  to  my  place  of  business. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you,  you  have  an  independent  recollection  of  this 
morning  you  met  Mr.  Holstlaw  ? — A.  I  am  not  positive :  I  may  have 
stopped  in  the  drug  store  or  in  a  saloon,  but  I  do  not  think  so;  I  did 
not  go  into  a  saloon  that  time  of  day,  because  I  never  drink  in  the 
forenoon. 

Q.  Much? — A.  Nothing  at  all. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  “  much  ?  ” — A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  many  people  did  you  introduce  Holstlaw  to  in  your  plac€ 
of  business? — A.  I  refuse  to  answer. 

Q.  Did  you  introduce  him  to  anyone? — A.  I  refuse  to  answer. 

Q,  On  what  ground  do  you  refuse  to  answer? — A.  As  I  stated 
before. 

Q.  What  is  that  ? — A.  I  might  be  compelled  to  give  evidence 
injuring  myself. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  do  not  think  a  single  word  could  have  been 
heard  of  your  answer  by  anybody. — A.  I  might  be  compelled  to 
give  evidence  injuring  myself. 

.Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  is  informed  that  Mr.  Griffin  is 
here,  and  the  committee  will  call  him.  Call  Mr.  John  Griffin,  repre¬ 
sentative  from  Cook  County. 

John  Griffin,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  duly 
sworn  by  Mr.  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Mr.  Aus¬ 
trian,  and  testified  as  follows: 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name,  sir? — A.  John  Griffin. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  answer  could  not  be  heard. — A.  John 
Griffin. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  is  your  business,  Mr.  Griffin  ? — A.  Teaming. 

Senator  Burrows.  Wait  a  minute.  Your  answers  can  not  be  heard. 
Will  you  direct  your  attention  this  way  and  speak  so  that  the  com¬ 
mittee  will  hear  you  ? — A.  I  am  in  the  "teaming  business. 

Q.  In  the  teaming  business? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  busi¬ 
ness? — A.  Oh,  about  twentv  years,  1  guess. 

Q.  Are  y7ou  actively  engaged  in  that  business  now? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  have  been? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  been  engaged  in  politics? — A.  Some. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  573 

Q.  Were  you  elected  as  a  member  to  the  forty-sixth  general  as- 
aiibly? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Democrat. 

Q.  Upper  or  lower  house? — A.  Lower  house. 

Q.  That  is,  the  house  of  repersentatives? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q„  Were  you  in  attendance  at  the  sessison  of  the  forty-sixth  gen¬ 
ial  assembly? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  in  the  month  of  May  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  month  of  April? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Right  along  from  January  down  to  June,  the  4th  or  5th? — A. 
ight  along  until  they  adjourned. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  they  adjourned? — A.  Well,  I  do  not 
imember  the  day. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  remember  about  the  time? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  soon  after  the  election  of  the  United 
tates  Senator? — A.  Oh,  I  don’t  know;  I  think  about  a  week,  maybe. 
Q.  A  week? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  after  the  election  of  United  States  Senator,  did  you  re- 
lrn  to  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  remain  in  Springfield  until  the  session  adjourned? — - 
..  I  left  that  morning. 

Q.  You  left  that  morning? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Immediately  after  the  election  of  United  States  Senator? — A. 
es,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  you  did  not  go  back  again,  did  you? — A.  Oh,  yes;  we 
ent  back  afterwards. 

Q.  For  the  special  session.  I  mean,  you  did  not  go  back  to  the 
eneral  session  ? — A.  I  think  we  did. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you. — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  went  back? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  we  went  back  there  and 
aved  there  a  day  or  two  and  then  it  adjourned. 

Q.  Oh,  yes.  Then  you  think  the  morning  after  the  election  of 
rnited  States  Senator  you  left  Springfield  and  came  to  Chicago? — 
..  Oh,  no;  we  did  not  leave  Springfield. 

Q.  Tell  us;  I  am  asking  you. — A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  anything  about  the  circumstances,  do 
ou? — A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Q.  Were  you  a  member  of  what  is  known  and  commonly  referred 
)  as  the  Browne  faction  of  the  house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tell  the  commitee  what  that  means. — A.  Why,  there  were  two 
mdidates  for  minority  leader  in  the  house. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  And  a  man,  Mr.  Tippet,  and  Mr.  Browne - 

Q.  Yes. — A.  And  Browne  had  the  most  votes,  and  was  nominated 
3  minority  speaker  of  the  house. 

Q.  Minority  leader  of  the  house? — A.  Minority  leader  of  the 
ouse. 

Q.  In  caucus? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  was  with  Browne. 

Q.  And  you  followed  his  leadership? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Right  through  the  session? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  did  he  indicate  his  leadership — by  the  measures  he  advo- 
lted,  or  what? — A.  Oh,  sometimes. 

Q.  lie  would  notify  his  followers,  his  faction,  of  certain  measures 
e  was  in  favor  of? — A.  He  didn’t  notify  me  of  anything. 


574  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  I  mean  his  faction ;  do  you  know  anything  about  that? — A.  Xo 
I  do  not. 

Q.  You  just  followed  the  lead;  is  that  right?— A.  Yes,  sir;  what 
ever  I  thought  was— if  I  thought  a  fellow  was  all  right,  I  would  vot< 
for  him ;  if  he  was  not,  I  did  not  vote  for  him. 

Q.  But  you  took  Browne’s  leadership;  you  was  with  Browne?— A 

Yes. 

Q.  Mr.  Griffin,  when  did  you  make  up  your  mind  to  vote  for  Mi 
Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator?— A.  Oh,  some  time  before  that 
Q.  Well,  tell  us  how  long  before  that.— A.  It  was  reported  two  o 
three  times  through  the  session  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  a  candidate 
Q.  Yes. — A.  And  I  knew  that  I  had  a  lot  of  friends  that  wer 
friends  to  Mr.  Lorimer,  and  I  knew  he  was  a  candidate  and  I  woul< 
vote  for  him. 

Q.  Xow,  who  reported  two  or  three  times  through  the  session  tha 
Mr.  Lorimer  was  a  candidate? — A.  It  was  common  talk. 

Q.  Who  did  you  go  to  to  find  out  whether  or  not  it  was  true?— A 
Why,  after  he  ivas  announced  candidate  everybody  knew. 

Q.  Xow,  when  was  he  an  announced  candidate? — -A.  Oh,  I  thin! 
probably  a  week,  maybe  ten  days,  before  he  was  elected. 

Q.  Yes ;  and  then  some  balloting  began  for  Lorimer,  didn’t  there  ?- 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  is  when  he  was  an  announced  candidate,  so  far  a 
you  know ;  is  that  correct  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  voted  for  him,  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When? — A.  I  voted  for  him  the  morning  that  he  was  nom 

mated.  .  • 

Q.  That  is  the  first  time  you  voted  for  him,  that  morning?— A 

That  is  the  only  time  I  guess  any  Democrat  voted  for  him. 

Q.  But  that  is  the  reason  you  did  not  vote  for  him  before;  is  tha 
the  reason? — A.  I  would  have  voted  for  him  any  time. 

Q.  Well,  he  was  not  voted  for  before  that?— A.  I  do  not  remembei 
Q.  You  do  not  remember  anything  about  that? — A.  I  voted  fo 
him  any  time  he  was  voted  for. 

Q.  You  did  ? — A.  Every  time  he  was  voted  for  I  voted  for  him. 
Q.  You  are  sure  of  that  ?— A.  I  am  pretty  sure. 

Q.  And  if  the  record  of  the  joint  assembly  shows  that  the  onl 
man  that  ever  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  from  the  13th  day  of  May  t 
the  26th  of  May  was  Bobert  J.  Mcllvaine,  then  the  record  is  wrong ?- 
A.  I  do  not  know  about  that. 

Q.  You  do  not;  but  you  voted  for  him  every  time  he  was  vote 
for? — A.  Oh,  no;  not  every  time;  I  voted  for  Stringer,  and  I  think 
voted  for  Harrison. 

Q.  Not  every  time  you  voted,  but  every  time  Mr.  Lorimer  we 
voted  for  you  voted  for  him  ? — A.  Oh,  no. 

Q,  Then  I  misunderstood  you? — A.  Maybe. 

Senator  Burrows.  Xobody  can  hear  your  answers. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Tell  us  what  you  mean  when  you  said,  then,  a  fe 
moments  ago,  that  every  time  he  was  voted  for  you  voted  for  him- 
A.  Oh.  no;  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  vote  for  him  ?— A.  I  did  not  vote  for  him  when  1 
first  came  out. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  575 

Q.  But  you  knew  he  was  an  announced  candidate,  didn't  you? — A. 
vrell,  I  did  not  want  to  vote  until  my — until  I  thought  my  vote 
ould  count. 

Q.  You  did  not  want  to  vote  for  him  until  the  Democrats  voted 
ir  him ;  isn’t  that  right  ? — A.  Until  I  thought  he  had  enough  votes 
>  elect  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  Won’t  you  turn  your  face  this  way,  so  that  the 
iporters  can  hear  what  you  say? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  on  the  26th  of  May,  you  thought  he  had 
aough  votes  to  elect  him,  did  you? — A.  I  did  not  know;  I  did  not 
link  anything  of  it  at  all. 

Q.  Oh,  you  did  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  it  didn’t  enter  your  mind  at  all  whether  he  had  enough 
otes  to  elect  him  the  day  you  voted  for  him? — A.  It  looked  like — by 
le  time — by  the  roll  call  and  the  way  they  were  voting  that  he  would 
ave  enough  votes. 

Q.  Read  the  last  question  and  answer,  please. 

(Question  and  answer  read.) 

Q.  And  then  you  voted  for  him,  is  that  correct? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  make  up  your  mind  to  vote  for  him  until  that 
lorning,  did  you? — A.  Oh,  yes,  I  did.  I  had  made  up  my  mind  long 
efore  that  to  vote  for  him. 

Q.  A  couple  of  weeks  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  Your  name  was  Griffin? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  pretty  far  up  on  the  roll  call,  weren’t  you  ? — A.  Yes, 

r. 

Q.  Yours  was  one  of  the  first  names  called  in  the  house,  wasn’t 
;? — A.  Well,  not  right  first. 

Q.  One  of  the  first  ? — A.  Way  up ;  pretty  near. 

Q.  Way  up  near  the  top? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  way  near  the  top,  as  far  as  Democrats  were  concerned,  you 
ere  one  of  the  first  Democrats  called  in  the  house? — A.  Petty  near 
le  top ;  yes. 

Q.  And  then  you  knew,  did  you,  that  he  would  have  enough  votes 

d  elect  him,  is  that  correct  ? — A.  It  looked  that  way  from  the - 

Q,.  And  you  had  no  one  inform  you  of  that  fact,  anyone  talk  to  you 
bout  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  talk  to  you  about  it;  did  Lee  O’Neil 
>rowne  ever  ask  you  to  vote  for  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  never  asked  you  to  vote  for  him? — A.  No, 

ir. 

Q.  Did  anyone  ever  ask  you  to  vote  for  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  never  told  anyone  you  would  vote  for  him? — A.  I 
light  have  told. 

Q.  Well,  who? — A.  I  might  have  told  a  half  dozen  fellows. 

Q.  Who  did  you  tell,  not  whom  you  might  have  told. — A.  I  think 
told  Abrahms;  I  think  I  told  Wilson;  I  think  I  might  have  told 
)octor  Allison,  who  sat  bak  of  me,  and  Tom  Reiley. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  tell  Browne? — A.  No;  Browne  sat  away,  a  long 
lays  from  me. 

Q.  But  you  never  talked  with  Browne  about  it,  did  you? — A.  No; 

did  not. 

Q.  And  Browne — I  beg  your  pardon - A.  No,  sir;  not  that  I 

em  ember. 


576  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  Browne  never  talked  to  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Wilson  come  to  you  ? — A.  No,  sir ;  we  sat  right  next  to  each 
other. 

Q.  Did  Wilson  talk  to  you  about  it? — A.  We  talked  the  matter 
over. 

Q.  Did  Wilson  ask  you  to  vote  for  Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Wilson  to  vote  for  Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  anyone  to  vote  for  Lorimer? — A.  I  asked  a  man 
named  Terrill. 

Q.  You  did  ask  Terrill? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  ask  Terrill  to  vote  for  Lorimer? — A.  Oh,  I  think 
about  the  second  night,  probably,  before  he  was  elected. 

Q.  Then,  if  he  was  elected  on  the  26th  of  May,  you  asked  Mr. 
Terrill  to  vote  for  him  on  the  24th. — A.  About  the  24th. 

Q.  In  the  evening? — A.  Yes,  sir;  about  somewhere,  probably,  half 
past  7  or  8  o’clock  in  the  evening. 

Q.  Where  ? — A.  Right  across  the  corner  from  the  hotel. 

Q.  The  St.  Nicholas  Hotel? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  stopped  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  where  all  or  mostly  all  of  the  members  stopped  ? — A.  A 
good  many. 

Q.  A  good  many?  And  then  you  had  this  talk  with  Terrill, 
did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir;  there  was  a  band  playing  across  the  street 
there;  I  went  across  the  street,  there  was  an  Elk’s  convention  there 
and  after  the  band  went  upstairs  I  started  to  walk  over  to  the  hotel 
and  met  Terrill  and  I  said,  “  Hello,  Terrill.”  He  said,  “  Hello.”  I 
said,  “Terrill,  why  don’t  you  vote  for  Lorimer.  Now,”  I  said, 
“you  are  a  Republican,  and  it  don’t  make  any  difference,”  and  I 
says,  “  It  will  make  you  strong  politically  in  your  town  to  have 
it  known — to  have  a  United  States  Senator  back  of  you,”  and  I  says, 
“  You  ought  to  vote  for  him,”  I  says,  “  as  long  as  he  is  a  Republican.” 
That  was  all  of  our  conversation. 

Q.  That  is  the  entire  conversation? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  if  Terrill  had  been  a  Democrat  you  would  have  told  him 
he  ought  to  vote  for  him  too? — A.  I  suppose  I  would;  yes. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  told  him  I  was  going  to  vote  for  him. 

Q.  Now,  you  did  not  discuss  with  Terrill  anything  about  money, 
did  you,  at  all? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Not  a  word? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Never  entered  your  mind? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  never  heard  about  money  for  United  States  Senator 
down  at  Springfield  during  that  session? — A.  There  was  some  talk 
afterwards. 

Q.  But  up  to  that  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  No  one  ever  talked  to  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  About  money? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  net  hear  money? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  hear  a  thousand  dollars  named? — A.  No,  su\ 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  get  any,  did  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Griffin,  you  just  told  this  committee  there  was  some  talk 
about  it  afterwards? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  577 

Q.  You  did  not  believe  these  talks,  did  you? — A.  I  did  not  see 
anybody  that  got  any. 

Q.  You  did  not  believe  any  of  these  talks  that  you  heard? — A.  I 
did  not  know  whether  to  believe  them  or  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  whether  to  believe  them  or  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  But  37ou  were  there  all  the  time? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  there. 

Q.  And  you  were  a  member  of  that  minority  faction  ? — A.  Y  es,  sir. 

Q.  But  still  you  could  not  make  up  your  mind  whether  or  not  that 
talk  was  true,  could  you? — A.  Which  talk? 

Q.  About  money  being  paid? — A.  Oh,  I  did  not  know  anything 
ibout  it. 

Q.  You  did  not  inquire? — A.  I  never  heard  until  afterwards. 

Q.  How  long  afterwards? — A.  Oh,  right  away  afterwards. 

Q.  Bight  after  the  election  of  United  States  Senator  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  wThat  did  you  hear? — A.  Oh,  there  were  rumors  around 
:here  that  some  fellows  had  got  some  money,  and  had  got  some 
noney,  but  I  did  not  see  anybody  that  had  got  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Griffin,  will  you  tell  this  committee  that  there  was  no  talk 
ibout  money  for  United  States  Senator  before  the  election  on  the 
26th  of  May? — A.  I  did  not  hear  of  any. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  them  there  was  no  such  talk  in  and  about  the 
louse  and  senate  chamber  and  in  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  that  money 
was  being  paid  for  votes  ? — A.  I  did  not  hear  of  any. 

Q.  But  you  heard  that  same  day  after  the  election? — A.  Yes; 
:here  was  some  rumors  to  that  effect. 

Q.  That  same  day? — A.  May  be  it  might  have  been  that  day  or 
;he  next  day. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  that  is  all. 

Cross-examination  by  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Mr.  Griffin,  did  you  say  when  you  had  the  conversation  with 
Mr.  Terrill  that  night  after  the  Elks  meeting  there,  and  when  you 
heard  the  band  playing,  and  then  you  crossed  the  street  and  met  Mr. 
Terrill — that  is  the  time  I  want  to  get  your  attention  to — did  Mr. 
Terrill  say  to  you,  “  I  asked  him ;  ”  that  is,  you,  “  what  there  would  be 
in  it” — no;  strike  that  out.  I  will  commence  over  again.  Did  you 
isk  Mr.  Terrill  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  he  say  then  to  you,  “  I  asked  him,”  you,  “  what  there 
would  be  in  it,  and  he,”  meaning  you,  “  said  4  a  thousand  dollars  ’ 
anyway;”  did  you  say  that  to  him? — A.  No,  sir;  there  never  was 
nothing  in  the  world  mentioned  about  that,  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Was  that,  or  that  in  substance,  or  anything  like  that  said? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  By  you? — A.  No,  sir.  I  just  stated  the  conversation  that  we 
had  that  evening. 

Q.  And  the  conversation  that  you  say  you  had  in  answer  to  Mr. 
Austrian  was  all  the  conversation? — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  all. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  anybody,  Mr.  Terrill  or  anybody  else,  at  that 
time  or  place  or  any  other  time  or  place,  that  there  was  a  thousand 
dollars  or  any  other  sum  of  money  or  any  other  thing  of  value  in 
it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  If  Terrill  or  anybody  else  would  vote  for  Mr.  William  Lorimer 
for  United  States  Senator? — A.  No,  sir. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 37 


578  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  You  never  got  anything  for  voting  for  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  know  anybody  who  did? — A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  that  is  all. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Mr.  Griffin,  have  you  been  present  at  other 
times  during  this  hearing? — A.  No,  sir;  this  is  my  first  time  here. 

Q.  Have  you  been  reading  any  account  in  the  newspapers  or  else¬ 
where? — A.  I  have  read  the  newspapers;  yes. 

Q.  And  if  your  name  has  been  connected  with  this  matter  or  sub¬ 
ject  under  consideration,  and  published — the  fact  published  in  the 
newspapers — you  would  know  it,  would  you  ? — A.  Tes,  sir. 

Senator  Heyburn.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Some  newspaper  men  did  ask  you  yesterday  about 
this  same  thing,  didn’t  they? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Or  last  night.  Who  was  he? — A.  Why,  he  represented  the 
Daily  News,  he  told  me- 

Q.  Well,  did  you  tell  him  the  same  thing  you  told  this  honorable 
committee? — A.  Just  the  same  statement  I  made  here,  that  is  the 
only  statement  I  could  make. 

Q.  Onlv  that  you  used  more  emphatic  language  probably? — A. 
Well,  maybe  I  did. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Didn’t  you  tell  Terrill  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  going 
to  be  elected  the  next  day? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nothing  like  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  tell  that  to  Mr.  Terrill  or  anyone  else? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  Mr.  Lorimer  was  going  to  be  elected  the  next  day? — A. 
No,  sir :  I  could  not  tell  him  that,  because  I  did  not  know. 

Q.  Well,  that  you  thought  he  was  going  to  be  elected? — A.  I 
thought  all  the  time  if  Lorimer - 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Terrill? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  And  did  not  say  anything  about  your  vote  for  him — your  voting 
for  him  the  next  day  or  the  day  after? — A.  I  might  have  told  Terrill 
that  I  was  going  to  vote  for  him. 

Q.  The  next  day  ? — A.  Well,  whenever  it  would  come  up. 

Q.  And  did  not  you  tell  that  it  was  going  to  be  pulled  off  the  next 
day  and  that  Lorimer  had  enough  votes  and  he  better  get  on  because 
lie  "was  a  Republican? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  Wilson? — A.  Wilson? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Oh,  I  might  have  told  Wilson  that  I  was  going  to 
vote  for  Lorimer- 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Because  I  had  a  lot  of  friends  that  were  friends  of 
Lorimer,  he  was  a  Chicago  man,  and  I  would  rather  vote  for  any 
Chicago  man  than  the  man  outside. 

Q.  How  many  Democrats  were  there  from  Chicago,  in  your  branch 
of  the  legislature? — A.  On  our  side  of  the  house? 

Q.  Yes.— A.  Oh,  I  don’t  know;  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Was  not  the  majority  of  the  53  Democrats  who  voted  for  Wil¬ 
liam  Lorimer  from  the  city  of  Chicago  ? — A.  Well,  I  think  there  was 
some  of  them  outside  of  the  city. 

Q.  'Well,  was  not  the  greater  number? — A.  I  guess  so ;  yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Just  one  minute- 

Q.  Mr.  Tippet  was  the  leader  of  the  other  faction,  wasn't  he? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMEE.  579 

Q.  The  other  Democratic  faction  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  voted  for  William  Lorimer  as  Senator,  didn’t  he? — A.  I 
believe  he  did. 

Q.  He  does  not  live  in  Chicago? — A.  No. 

Q.  Blair  does  not  live  in  Chicago? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  a  Democrat,  and  he  voted  for  William  Lorimer,  didn’t 
he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q-  Espey  is  a  Democrat,  and  he  voted  for  Lorimer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  does  not  live  in  Cook  county,  does  he? — A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Pardon  me,  I  desire  to  object.  This  is  all  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  record,  the  residences  of  each  member  of  both  houses  is  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  record,  and  in  the  legislative  reports  that  we  have  got  in  evi¬ 
dence. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Then  why  should  counsel  have  asked  the  question, 
except  to  impress  upon  the  minds  oi  the  committee  a  fact  that  is 
not  true.  He  is  now  appealing  to  this  committee  to  rule  out  some¬ 
thing  that  he  put  in. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  not  asking  them  to  rule  it  out.  If  this  wit¬ 
ness  made  a  misstatement  of  evidence,  it  is  not  my  fault. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  it  appears  by  the  record  where  they  re- 
dde - 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  not  quite  sure  it  does. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  say  it  does. 

Senator  Heyburn.  It  does  on  the  first  page  of  the  journal. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  does  on  the  first  two  pages  of  the  journal. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  not  sufficient,  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman, 
because  whenever  this  honorable  committee  or  the  colleagues  of  this 
committee,  either  in  the  general  committee  or  in  the  house,  gets  to 
that  part  of  the  record,  they  will  not  go  back  to  test  the  question 
by  looking  at  the  journal  of  the  house  and  senate  to  see  whether  it 
is  true  or  not,  and  I  submit  that  in  connection  with  the  question  that 
was  asked  and  answered,  that  he  obtained  that,  that  we  be  permitted 
to  show  that  a  majority  of  the  Democrats  who  did  vote  for  William 
Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  were  not  residents  of  Chicago  and 
were  not  residents  of  Cook  County. 

Senator  Burrows.  Has  the  witness  stated  they  were  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  exact  language  there - 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  the  statement  was  that  a  majority  of 
them  were  from  Cook  county. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  I  propose  to  show  they  were  not. 

Senator  Burrows.  Go  on  with  your  question. 

Senator  Paynter.  Judge  Hanecy,  I  do  not  want  to  be  strict  in 
this  matter,  but  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  me  to  understand  what  dif¬ 
ference  it  makes  whether  they  are  from  Chicago  or  some  other  part 
af  the  State? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  know.  Senator  Paynter,  what  the  pur¬ 
pose  was  but  counsel  must  have  had - 

Senator  Paynter.  Go  ahead,  get  through  some  way.  I  am  not 
raising  any  objection;  go  ahead. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  shorten  it  in  this  way.  I  will  ask  that  this 
honorable  committee  and  the  large  committee  refer  to  the  record  in 
refutation  of  the  question  asked  by  Mr.  Austrian. 

Senator  Paynter.  If  lie  wishes  to  ask  the  question,  I  do  not  want 
t  understood  that  I  am  objecting. 


580  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  it  in  connection  with  that. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  would  like  to  limit  it  some  way. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anything  further  with  this  witness  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  it  all,  Mr.  Griffin. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  another  witness  that  will  be  brief, 

Judge?  .  , 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  I  have  one  other  witness,  but  1  doubt 

whether  I  could  get  through  with  him  before  the  adjournment,  but 
I  will  go  on  if  the  committee  desires  me  to,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Griffin,  you  had  better  remain  here.  Yon 
are  discharged  for  the  present.  You  had  better  remain  where  yon 
can  be  called. 

The  Witness.  All  right,  sir.  . 

Senator  Gamble.  How  far  is  your  place  of  business  from  when 

the  committee  sit? 

The  Witness.  Oh,  I  might  go  home  for  lunch. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  is  all  right. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Come  back  at  2  o’clock ;  you  can  do  that  withou 
incon  venience. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  take  a  recess  until  2  o’clock 
Whereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  2  o’clock  p.  m.,  sam 
day — Thursday,  October  6,  1910. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Thursday,  October  6 ,  1910. 

At  2  o’clock  p.  m.  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  am 
thereupon  the  following  proceedings  were  had : 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Sergeant,  call  Mr.  Browne. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  another  witness,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  beg  pardon. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  have  another  witness  here,  if  you  desire  to  pi 
him  on. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  his  name? 

J  udge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Curran. 

Senator  Burrows.  Curran? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  Thomas  Curran. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  will  call  Mr.  Curran  instead. 

Thomas  Curran,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first  dul 
sworn,  Avas  examined  in  chief  by  Judge  Hanecy,  and  testified  < 

follows :  . 

Q.  Mr.  Curran,  are  you  a  member  of  the  legislature  ? — A.  1  es,  si 
Q.  Of  Illinois?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  haA^e  you  been  a  member? — A.  lour  years;  tv 
terms. 

Q.  Have  you  been  renominated  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is,  at  the  direct  primaries  just  passed?— A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  were  you  chairman  of  ar 
committee? — A.  I  was  chairman  of  the  labor  and  industrial  anai 

committee. 

Q.  Of  the  house? — A.  Of  the  house. 

Qt  A  Browne  or  a  Tippet  man  ( — A.  I  am  a  Republican. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  581 


Q.  WTiat  is  that? — A.  I  am  a  Republican. 

Q.  You  were  not  allied  with  either  of  those? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  A.  White  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  before  his  membership  in  the  forty-sixth 
general  assembly? — A.  Yo,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  having  a  conversation  with  Charles  A. 
iYhite  on  or  about  the  27th  day  of  May,  1909,  in  the  corridor  of  the 
Idatehouse  at  Springfield,  the  day  after  Senator  Lorimer  was 
;  elected  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  that  conversation  did  Mr.  White  say  to  you:  “  Curran,  are 
/ou  going  to  report  the  woman’s  ten-hour  bill  in?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  then  say  to  Mr.  White :  “  I  surely  am ;  I  am  with  that 
fill,”  and  did  Mr.  White  then  say  to  you :  “  What  do  you  do  that  for? 
[f  }7ou  will  hold  it  up,  there  will  be  something  in  it  for  us?  ” — 
Y  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  then  say  to  White :  “  There  can’t  be  anything  in  this 
fill  for  me.  I  am  not  that  kind  ?  ” — A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  White  then  say  to* you:  “  What  the  hell!  Are  you 
ifraid?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  then  say  to  Mr.  White,  u  Yo;  I  am  not  afraid,  but  I  am 
*oing  to  report  the  bill  in?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  White  then  say  to  you,  “  Will  you  hold  it  up  for  just  a 
ittle  while?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  did  you  say  to  Mr.  White,  “  Oh,  no;  I  will  report  it 
n  just  as  soon  as  the  clerk  calls  for  reports  of  committees;  I  won’t 
lold  it  for  a  minute?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir;  or  words  to  that  effect. 

iQ.  Yes;  did  Mr.  WTiite  then  laugh  and  walk  away  and  say,  “I 
:ho light  you  were  all  right,”  and  did  you  then  say,  “And  so  1  am?  ” — 
Y  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  the  same  time  and  at  the  same  conversation  did  White  say 
;o  you,  “  Was  there  anything  doing  on  that  senatorship  election  of 
Lorimer  yesterday  ?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  you  say,  “  Yot  that  I  know  of.  I  heard  of  nothing  of 
he  kind.  You  are  a  Democrat  and  voted  for  him,  and  you  ought  to 
mow  if  there  was.  Why  do  you  ask?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  our 
conversation. 

Q.  Did  White  then  say  to  you,  “  Well,  I  didn’t  know ;  I  thought 
;here  was.  I  thought  that  Browne  was  double  crossing  us.  I  thought 
[  was  being  double  crossed.” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say,  “I  know  nothing  about  it  at  all?  I  have  heard 
lothing?  ” — A.  Yes,  sir. 

i  Q.  That  ten-hour  bill — the  woman’s  ten-hour  bill - A.  Yes. 

Q.  (continuing)  was  referred  to  your  committee,  wras  it? — A.  It 
pvas  in  my  committee. 

Q.  And  was  pending  before  it  prior  to  this  conversation? — A.  Yes, 

sir. 

Q.  That  is  right,  is  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  IIanecy.  That  is  all. 


D 

is 


Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Mr.  Curran,  just  look  at  the  chairman,  please. — A. 
Q.  This  man  White  was  a  disreputable  sort  of  a  man, 


All  right, 
wasn’t  he? — - 


Y  I  don’t  know  about  that. 

Q.  Any  man  who  offered  you  an  inducement  to  hold  out,  or  asked 
7011  to  hold  out  a  bill  for  the  purpose  of  permitting  himself  to  make 


582  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


money  out  of  it  would  be  a  disreputable  sort  of  a  man,  wouldn’t  he  ?— 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  that  is  what  he  was? — A.  Well - 

Q.  He  was  a  disreputable  character  ?— A.  I  said  previous  to  that 
that  I  didn’t  know  as  he  was. 

Q.  But  then  you  immediately  assumed  that  he  was  a  disreputable 
character? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  he  was,  too,  wasn’t  he?— A.  Well,  I  believe  he  was  wher 
he  tried  to  bribe  me. 

Q.  He  tried  to  bribe  you? — A.  I  didn’t  consider  that  at  that  time 

Q.  Well,  you  knew  what  he  meant  when  he  said  to  u  hold  it  up 
and  let  us  see  what  we  can  do,”  or  things  to  that  effect? — A.  Y  es. 

Q.  You  knew  exactly  what  he  meant,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  didn’t 
know  exactly  what  he  meant. 

Q.  What  did  you  think  he  meant? — A.  In  fact,  at  the  time  I  die 
not  know  what  he  meant. 

Q.  What? — A.  I  did  not  know  what  he  meant. 

Q.  It  did  not  make  enough  impression  upion  you  to  considei 
whether  he  was  trying  to  gain  some  unlawful  advantage  out  of  th< 
bill  then  pending  in  your  committee,  did  it? — A.  No;  but  I  will  tel 
you  that  I  was  with  that  bill  heart  and  soul. 

Q.  I  didn’t  ask  you  that,  Mr.  Curran.  I  ou  would  not  permit  any 
one  to  influence  you  corruptly,  would  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  when  White  went  to  you  and  had  this  conversation  yoi 
thought  he  was  trying  to  influence  you  corruptly,  did  you  not? — A 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that  in  your  mind,  is  there?— A.  A 
that  time — I  did  not  think  of  it  at  that  time. 

Q.  When  did  you  think  of  it  that  way?— A.  Well,  after  I  sa\ 
how  things  turned  out  I  thought  of  it  that  way. 

Q.  And  you  began  to  think  of  it  that  way  after  the  1st  day  o 
May,  1910,  didn’t  you? — A.  No. 

Q.  When? — A.  Right  along;  I  knew  White  was  crooked— 

thought  he  was. 

Q.  That  White  was  crooked? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  up  your  mind  that  he  was  crooked? — A 
During  that  time — after  that  time. 

Q.  After  that  time?— A.  After  that  time,  after  that  conversatior 

Q.  Immediately  after  that  conversation  ? — A.  Shortly.  I  could  nc 
say  immediately. 

Q.  What  was  it  that  made  you  conclude  he  was  crooked? — A.  Hi 
conversation. 

Q.  That  conversation? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Well,  after  he  did  talk  to  you,  you  concluded  that  he  was 
crooked  fellow,  did  you? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that  in  your  mind  at  all,  is  there  ? — A 
I  don’t  think  there  is. 

Q.  The  legislature  remained  in  session  for  several  days  after  tha 
didn’t  it? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  is  correct,  isn’t  it  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Seven  or  eight  days? — A.  Seven  or  eight  days. 

Q.  Why  didn’t  you  haul  him  up  before  the  speaker? — A.  At  tin 
time  I  did  not  care  to  create  an}''  stir  in  the  house,  and,  in  fact,  he  ha 
done  no  harm. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  583 


Q.  He  had  done  no  harm?  When  he  tried  to  bribe  you,  a  member 
,f  the  legislature,  didn’t  you  consider  he  was  trying  to  do  some 
iarm  ? — A.  Well,  no ;  I  didn’t  consider  it  at  that  time,  because  there 
ras  no  chance  for  him  to  do  anything  with  me. 

Q.  Well,  the  fact  that  he  did  not  succeed  in  bribing  you  is  not  any 
■eason  why  you. should  not  haul  him  up  before  the  members  of  the 
louse,  was  it?— A.  I  did  not  look  at  it  in  that  light  at  that  time, 
sow,  I  should  say - 

Q.  In  other  words,  at  the  time  you  and  White  had  the  conversa- 
ion — the  talk  you  have  testified  to — in  reference  to  the  woman’s  ten- 
lour  bill  you  did  not  consider  he  was  trying  to  bribe  you  at  all  ? — A. 
sot  at  the  time  he  come  to  see  me. 

Q.  Well,  the  next  hour,  did  you  ? — A.  Oh,  I  would  not  say  the  next 
iour;  I  would  say  when  I  got  to  thinking  it  over,  thinking  of  what 
his  fellow  had  said  to  me. 

Q.  You  came  up  here  and  visited  Lee  O’Neil  Browne? — A.  Where? 

Q.  Chicago,  after  the  first  trial. — A.  Visited  him ;  I  lived  here. 

Q.  He  sent  for  you  at  the  Briggs  House? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  after  the  first  trial? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Just  before  the  second  trial? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  first  time  that  you  had  ever  detailed  to  Lee 
J’Xeil  Browne  either  one  of  these  conversations? — A.  Yes;  that  was 
he  first  time  to  Lee  O’Neil  Browne. 

Q.  The  first?  time  you  ever  detailed  it  to  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  or  any 
)f  his  lawyers? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now^  the  next  conversation  you  spoke  of — when  did  that  take 
place,  with  reference  to  the  first  conversation,  the  one  about  Lorimer 
jnd  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  double-crossing  White? — A.  On  the  day 
lfter  the  election. 

Q„  It  was  the  same  day  you  had  the  other  conversation? — A.  It 
was  the  same  day  I  had  the  other  conversation ;  it  was  all  one  con¬ 
versation. 

Q.  It  was  all  one  conversation  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  were  you  when  you  had  the  conversation? — A.  In  the 
hallway  back  of  the  speaker’s  desk. 

Q.  Did  White  send  for  you? — A.  White  stood  there  in  the  doorway 
md  beckoned  to  me. 

Q.  Oh,  he  beckoned  to  you  to  come  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  tell  this  committee  what  conversation  you  had  with  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  Lorimer  transaction?  What  did  White  say  to  you 
and  what  did  you  say  to  White? — A.  Well,  all  White  said  to  me¬ 
atier  the  conversation  on  the  ten-hour  bill  he  said  to  me,  “  What  was 
doing  on  the  senatorship  yesterday?  ”  And  I  said,  “Nothing  that  I 
know  of.” 

Q.  Go  on. — A.  lie  said  to  me — well,  I  said,  “  Why  do  you  ask  me 
(hat?  You  voted  for  him;  you  are  a  Democrat,  and  if  there  was 
anything  doing,”  I  said,  “you  ought  to  know.”  I  said,  “Why  do 
you  ask  me  ?  ” 

Q.  What  did  he  say? — A.  Well,  he  said,  “  I  don’t  know.”  ITe  said, 
“I  thought  that  Browne  was  double-crossing  us — that  there  was 
something  doing  in  Browne  double-crossing  us. 

Q.  What  did  you  say?— A.  I  said,  “I  dont  know.” 


584  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  That  was  the  entire  conversation? — A.  Yes;  or  words  to  thai 
effect.  Of  course,  I  can't  remember  it  word  for  word. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Browne  about  that? — A.  When? 

Q.  At  any  time? — A.  Oh,  no;  I  hadn’t  saw  Browne,  I  don’t  think 
for  a  year. 

Q.  You  did  not  tell  Browne  anything  about  that  until  after  hr 
first  trial,  in  August  of  this  37ear,  1910.  Is  that  correct? — A.  Yes 
that  is  the  time. 

Q.  Sir?— A.  Y  es;  that  was  the  time. 

Q.  Now,  you  thought  that  was  a  pretty  important  incident,  didn't 
you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  still  you  knew  that  Browne  was  being  tried  for  his  liberty 
in  Chicago? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  lived — you  were  living  here? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  inform  Mr.  Browne  of  that  fact  until  aftei 
he  had  been  tried  once  and  the  jury  had  disagreed.  Is  that  right?— 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  told  Charley  White,  the  time  of  this  conversation,  thai 
you  did  not  know  anything  about  any  money  for  Lorimer.  Is  thai 
right? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  had  not  heard  of  any? — A.  No. 

Q.  That  is  what  you  told  him? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  whether  he  had  been  crossed  oi;  not? — A.  No 
sir. 

Q.  Or  whether  anyone  had  been  double  crossed? — A.  No,  sir;  1 
didn’t. 

Q.  And  that  Charley  White  was  a  Democrat,  and  as  a  Democral 
having  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  he  should  have  known  whether  there 
was  any  money  used? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  that  your  opinion? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Well,  why  should  he,  as  a  Democrat,  have  known  whethei 
there  was  any  money  in  it,  any  more  than  you,  a  Kepublican? — A 
Well,  I  didn't  know  anv  reason  for  it. 

Q.  Why  did  you  say  to  him :  “  You  are  a  Democrat,  and  have  beer 
a  Democrat,  and  having  voted  for  Lorimer,  you  should  know  whethei 
there  was  anything  in  it.'’  What  did  you  mean  by  that? — A.  He 
was  a  Democrat,  and  I  thought  if  there  was  any  money  in  it  a  Demo¬ 
crat,  should  know. 

Q.  And  you  further  thought  that  Charley  White  being  such  i 
Democrat,  as  you  knew  him  to  be,  with  his  hand  out,  would  havt 
been  one  of  the  Democrats  that  would  first  know,  didn’t  you? — A 
Yes;  I  naturally  thought  he  would. 

Q.  Now,  didn't  you  hear  of  any  such  thing  going  on  down  at 
Springfield  during  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  on  the  26th  of  May 
1909? — A.  No,  sir;  I  never  did. 

Q,  You  never  heard  any  report  nor  any  remark  nor  any  talk,  noi 
anything  of  the  kind,  did  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  Call  Mr.  Browne — Mr.  Lee  O'Neil. 
Browne. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  585 

Lee  O'Neill  Browne,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first 
ulv  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  in  chief  by  Mr. 
aistrian,  and  testified  as  follows: 

Senator  Burrows.  I  believe  you  have  been  sworn,  Mr.  Browne, 
ave  you  ? — A.  I  have. 

Mr.'  Austrian.  TVhat  is  vour  full  name? — A.  Lee  O’Neil  Browne. 
Q.  Where  do  you  reside? — A.  Well,  for  the  last  five  months  in 
Rica  go. 

Q.  Where  is  your  home? — A.  Ottawa,  Ill. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  how  long  have  you  resided  at  Ottawa.  Ill.  ? — A.  I 
ent  there,  and  I  began  the  practice  of  law  in  August  of  1890. 

Q.  You  have  been  admitted  to  the  bar  ever  since  1890? — A.  No; 
have  been  admitted  since  1889. 

Q.  In  other  words,  since  1889  you  have  been  a  practicing  lawyer 
i  the  State  of  Illinois.  Is  that  correct? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When,  for  the  first  time,  were  you  elected  to  the  Illinois  legisla¬ 
te? — A.  At  the  November  election  of  1900. 

Q.  To  what  house? — A.  To  the  house  of  representatives. 

Q.  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Democrat. 

Q.  Democrat  at  all  times? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  forty-sixth  general  assembly - A.  I  would  like  to  suggest 

i  you,  if  you  will  pardon  me,  that  in  my  county  I  probably  get 
early  as  many  Republican  votes  as  I  do  Democrat. 

Q.  But  you  are  a  Democrat? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  In  other  words,  you  run  on  the  Democratic  ticket? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Always  have? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  immediately  prior  to  the  assembling  of  the  forty- 
xth  general  assembly,  you  became  an  active  candidate  for  minority 
■ader  of  the  house,  on  the  Democratic  side,  is  that  correct? — A.  Re¬ 
eat  that  question,  please. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  it. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  become - A.  Not  at  that  time. 

Q.  Well,  prior  to  that  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  other  words,  the  house  convened  in  J anuary,  1909  ? — A.  The 

fth,  I  think. 

Q.  The  fifth  of  January? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  you  began  your  candidacy  for  minority  leader  along  in 
le  latter  part  of  1908,  did  you  not? — A.  Almost  immediately  after 
le  election. 

Q.  Well,  that  was  the  latter  part  of  1908,  wasn’t  it? — A.  Novem- 

er. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  you  began  then  to  solicit  adherents  and  votes  for  that  mi- 
ority  leadership? — A.  I  began  to  campaign  for  minority  leadership, 
do  not  know  whether  you  would  call  it  exactly  soliciting  or  not. 

Q.  You  urged  men  to  meet  you - A.  I  did. 

Q.  (continuing) - and  to  come  into  line  for  you? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  to  support  you  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Perhaps  that  was  not  solicitation,  I  don’t  know.  Mr.  Browne 
on  were  elected  minority  leader  in  the  caucus,  were  you  not? — • 

Yes,  sir. 


586  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  And  there  were  two  factions  of  the  minority  party ;  the  Demo 
crats  were  the  minority  party  in  the  house,  in  the  forty-sixth  genera 
assembly,  were  they  not  ? — A.  There  were  two  candidates  for  minor 
ity  leadership;  two  names  presented  at  the  caucus,  that  is,  it  narrowec 
down  to  two,  the  night  of  the- 

—  _  —  -»  -■  w  m  •  i  A  k 


Q.  You  and  Mr.  Tippet?— A.  Thomas  Tippet,  of  Olney,  Ill.  # 
Q.  And  the  Democratic  members  of  the  house  Avere  m  the  mmonh 
in  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly?— A.  Yes;  there  were  64  Demo 
crats,  and  the  balance  of  the  153  \Arere  Republicans. 

Q.  Making  89,  would  it  not,  Republicans,  and  64  Democrats  ?— A. 

don’t  know;  I  didn’t  figure  it  up. 

Q.  Well,  all  right.  Among  those  whom  you  solicited  or  canvassed 

or  caucused,  or  what  not,  was  Charles  A.  White? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  known  Charles  A.  White  prior  to  that  time? — A. 
had  never  seen  the  man,  to  my  knowledge,  before  that  time,  but 
had  had  a  letter  from  him,  and  I  had  replied  to  his  letter.  That  wa 
after  his  nomination  and  before  his  election.  The  letter  requester 
me  to  intercede  with  his  running  mate,  Mr.  Smith,  at  that  time  a 
old  member,  or  member  of  the  session  before — to  intercede  with  hir 
to  play  fair  and  not  indulge  in  the  plumping  system,  and  thereb 
they  could  both  be  elected;  and  I  replied  to  that  lettei,  and  I  als 
think,  though  I  am  not  sure,  but  I  think  I  wrote  Mr.  Smith,  als< 
pursuant  to  that  letter. 

Q.  You  had  been  a  member  of  the  forty-fifth  general  assembly 

had  you  not? — A.  Yes,  sir.  .  .  , 

Q.  Mr.  White  had  been  a  member  of  a  labor  organization  dow 

there,  hadn’t  he? — A.  Yes;  I  believe  that  is  a  fact,  but  I  did  nc 

know  it.  .  ,  TT  ,  ,  ,  , 

Q.  You  did  not  know  it? — A.  I  did  not  know  it.  He  had  not  bee 

up  before  any  committee  I  was  on,  or  that  I  was  interested  in,  at  tf 

time  he  was  before  them.  . 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  after  the  election  of  yourself  as  minorit 

leader,  and  the  convening  of  the  general  assembly  in  1909,  did  yo 
become  better  acquainted,  or  well  acquainted  with  Mr.  White*— I 
Well,  pardon  me,  Mr.  Austrian- 


O.  How  well  acquainted  did  you  become  with  him?  Put  it  ths 
way’_A.  I  should  say  there  was  not  any  time  intervening  betAvee 

the  election  of  minority  leader  and  the  convening. 

Q,  Well,  at  that  time - A.  In  other  words— if  you  will  pardc 

me  for  explaining  it — the  caucus  for  the  election  of  minority  lead< 
took  place  Tuesday,  I  think,  about  9  o’clock.  The  house  was  coi 

veiled  the  next  day,  Wednesday,  at  noon 

Q.  Well,  now,  after  the  convening  of  the  house  and  the  contini 

ance  of  the  general  assembly,  did  your  acquaintance  with  Mi.  Whi 
continue,  and  enlarge,  and  grow,  or  was  it  diffident,  ]ust  the  same  i 
theretofore ?— A.  It  took  just  the  same  course  that  my  acquaintan 
with  any  member  would  that  had  voted  for  me  and  become  a  memb 

°f Q.iyfhat  is,  no  other*— A.  I  don’t  know  that  I  understand  th 

<|UQ.  *You  did  not  know  him  any  better  than  you  knew  other  membe 
who  followed  the  Browne  minority  leadership  faction?— A.  1  ct 
onlv  answer  you  in  this  way:  There  Avas  no  acquaintance  between  M 
White  and  myself  during  the  session  of  1909,  from  the  time  it  co 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  587 

ened  until  is  closed,  on  June  4,  1909,  only  that  arose  purely  from 
igislative  matters  and  the  intercourse  necessary  thereto. 

Q.  Barring  that - A.  No  social  relations  of  any  kind. 

Q.  I  understand  that  fully.  Barring  the  relationship  which  you 
ave  detailed,  there  was  no  relationship  between  you  and  Mr. 
Vdiite  ? — A.  I  think  not,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  then,  after  the  session  had  terminated,  concluded  on  the 
th  or  5th  day  of  June,  1909,  did  that  relationship  assume  a  social  rela- 
onship,  or  just  still  remain  a  political  relationship? — A.  There  was 
o  social  relationship  in  the  sense  that  you  refer  to,  or  that  people 
peak  of  social  relationship,  between  Mr.  White  and  myself  prior  to, 
think,  to  the  14th  day  of  June,  1909. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  one,  was  it?— A.  Yes,  sir;  it  might  have 
een  the  13th,  but  I  think  it  was  the  14th. 

Q.  The  13th  or  14th  day  of  August? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  1909?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  at  that  time - A.  I  would  like  to  explain  it  to  you  so  that 

here  may  be  no  mistake.  I  always  stopped  at  the  Briggs  House  for 
ossibly  nine — longer  than  that — ten  years  or  more.  Mr.  White  had 
een  stopping  at  the  Briggs  House.  I  don't  believe  he  ever  stopped 
here  before  June.  I  never  saw  him  there  before  that  time  in  1909. 
)nce  or  twice  and  probably  three  times — but  I  think  only  twice — - 
rom  the  time  the  session  closed  until  the  day  in  August,  as  I  refer 
a,  White  and  I  were  at  the  Briggs  House  around  about  there,  stop- 
iing  there  at  the  same  time;  he  was  stopping  there  and  I  would  be 
topping  there.  Now,  I  exchanged  with  him  during  these  times  the 
ame  courtesies  and  the  same  casual  meeting  courtesies  as  I  would 
pith  any  of  the  rest  that  I  knew  there,  and  perhaps  a  little  more, 
.ecause  of  my  acquaintance  with  him  in  the  legislature. 

Q.  That  was  all? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Up  to  June? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Is  that  right? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Then,  up  to  August  14  or  15,  1909  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  is,  up  to  that  time,  if  I  understand  you  correctly,  there 
?as  no  greater  relationship  or  a  more  courteous  relationship  with 
iim  than  there  was  between  you  and  every  other  member  of  your 
minority  faction? — A.  Oh,  yes;  yes;  there  was  more  than  there  was 
>etween  myself  and  every  other  member. 

Q.  Or  any  other  member  ? — A.  There  was  not  as  much  as  there  was 
>etween  myself  and  a  number  of  other  members.  There  was  more 
han  there  was  between  myself  and  some  of  the  members. 

Q,  In  what  respect? — A.  More — in  order  to  make  it  clear  to  you — 
Jr.  White,  for  some  reason  or  the  other  which  I  do  not  pretend  to 
xplain,  was  not  popular  with  the  members  on  my  side  of  the  house, 
n  fact,  that  was  constantly  borne  in  upon  me  and  brought  to  my 
:nowledge  by  the  members  themselves.  He  was  a  man  who  took  a 
rreat  deal  of  interest,  apparently,  in  labor  legislation.  He  was  inter¬ 
ested  in  a  number  of  bills.  He  wanted  other  bills  prepared,  and  he 
vas,  as  I  say,  a  new  member,  and  he  was  not  competent,  apparently, 
o  attend  to  those  matters  himself.  No  one  seemed  willing  to  help 
iim  and  nobody  did  help  him.  He  came  to  me.  I  took  an  interest 
n  him  along  those  lines  and  helped  him  during  the  session  in  the 
Reparation  of  his  bills  and  in  the  examination  of  the  bills  that  he 


588  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

was  interested  in  and  showed  more  courtesy  along  those  lines  thai 
I  did  any  other  single  man  on  my  side,  because  I  felt  sorry  for  him. 

Q.  He  was  a  subject  of  pity,  more  or  less? — A.  No;  not  exacth 
pity.  I  felt  grateful  to  him  because  he  had  stood  by  me  and  hac 
voted  for  me,  and  was  a  staunch  adherent  of  mine  during  the  sessior 
and  I  felt  grateful  to  him. 

Q.  And  from  January  on - A.  I  felt  friendly  toward  him  fo 

that  reason. 

Q.  A  great  many  others  had  stood  by  you  and  voted  for  you,  ha< 
they  not? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  felt  equally  friendly  toward  them,  did  you? — A.  I  though 
he  was  a  more  fit  object  for  my  friendship,  or  subject  for  my  friend 
ship  than  other  members  who  either  were  old  members  and  versei 
in  legislative  ways,  or  who  were  better  equipped  mentally  to  tak 
care  of  themselves  than  he  was. 

Q.  That  is,  there  were  a  good  many  members  of  the  Browne  minoi 
ity  faction  who  were  more  capable  of  taking  care  of  themselves  mer. 
tally  than  he  was? — A.  Yes;  there  were,  as  I  say,  a  good  many- 
there  were  some— there  were  other  members  who  were  not  any  bette 
equipped  mentally,  but  those  members  were,  perhaps,  men  who  di 
not  take  the  interest  that  he  did  'in  legislation. 

Q.  That  is,  he  was  not  what  you  would  call  a  man  capable  o 
framing  bills,  and  analyzing  bills,  and  reviewing  and  preparin 
them ;  is  that  right  ?— A.  He  did  not  seem  to  be. 

Q.  And  you  assisted  him  ? — A.  I  tried  to. 

Q.  And  by  reason  of  that  assistance  you  became  a  little  beth 
acquainted  with  him  during  the  session  of  the  legislature  than  pei 
haps  you  did  with  some  others,  is  that  correct? — A.  I  think  that 
not  correctly  stated. 

Q.  Now,  you  saw  him  then,  from  the  beginning  of  the  legislatui 
on  the  4th  or  5th  of  January,  if  I  have  the  dates  correctly,  in  190' 
until  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature  on  the  4th  or  5th  of  Jun 
1909,  quite  frequently,  in  the  way  you  have  described? — A.  I  presun 
there  was  not  a  day ‘passed  when  Mr.  White  was  in  Springfield,  an 
I  was  there  during  that  time,  that  I  did  not  see  him  at  least  once. 

Q.  And  that  was  well  known;  he  was  seen  with  you,  was  1 

not? — A.  No,  no. 

Q.  He  was  not? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  were  not  seen  in  conference  together? — A.  No. 

Q.  Or  with  each  other?— A.  Would  you  let  me  explain  it  to  yoi 

Q.  Kindly  answer  it  yes  or  no. — A.  No. 

Q.  You  either  did  see  him  or  you  didn’t- - 

Senator  Burrows.  Can  you  answer  it  yes,  or  no?— A.  I  can  n< 
intelligently. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  let  the  witness  answer. 

jyir  Austri4N.  4  es. 

The  Witness.  Now,  the  life  of  a  minority  leader  is  a  busy  one, 
he  is  a  minority  leader.  I  had  my  sessions  at  the  house  to  attend 
and  take  care  of.  I  had  my  committees  to  look  out  for  and  see  th 
they  were  properly  attended  by  members  whom  I  thought  cou 
handle  the  various  subjects,  because  I  could  not  distribute  myse 
around  to  the  different  places.  Whenever  this  work  would  be  dor 
I  came  to  my  room  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  where  I  had  a  sui 
of  rooms  on  the  fourth  floor— I  think  at  first  they  were  on  the  thu 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  589 

oor,  and  then  on  the  fourth  floor.  I  had  a  room,  a  bathroom,  and 
nother  large  room  occupied  by  myself  and  A.  J.  Cermak,  who  was 
hairman  of  the  steering  committee  under  me.  Now,  I  spent  some 
ttle  time  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  visiting  around  with  the  members, 
lost  of  my  time  was  spent  upon  the  floor  of  the  house,  in  the  com- 
littee  meetings,  and  in  m37  rooms  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel.  Neces- 
irily,  therefore,  unless  it  would  be  in  my  room,  there  would  be  very 
ew  conferences  between  myself  and  any  member,  unless  they  were 
asual,  that  others  would  see. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  were  recognized  as  the  leader  of  the  minority, 
-Tere  you  not? — A.  Well,  yes,  and  no.  I  was  recognized  by  my  fac- 
ion,  Mr.  Austrian,  as  the  minority  leader,  and  by  the  other  faction 
was  considered  anything  but  a  leader. 

Q.  You  considered  yourself  a  leader,  did  you  not? — A.  No;  I 
id  not.  If  I  had  been  a  successful  one  I  think  I  would  have  been 
ble  to  amalgamate  the  two  factions. 

Q.  How  many  members  were  there  in  the  faction,  Mr.  Browne? — 
l.  My  faction? 

Q.  How  many  members  were  there  in  your  faction? — A.  That 
hows  that  I  was  not  a  successful  leader,  because  I  started  out  with 
9  and  I  finished  with  37. 

Q.  How  many  were  there  in  the  Tippet  faction? — A.  Twenty-five 
0  start  with  and  27  at  the  finish. 

Q.  They  took  2  away  from  you? — A.  They  were  not  with  me 
0  start  with,  as  a  matter  of  fact. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  from  the  beginning  of  the  session  until  the 
nish  did  anyone  report  to  you  that  this  man  White  was  trying  to 
old  up  legislation? — A.  No. 

Q,  Or  that  he  was  trying  to  gain  money  for  legislation? — A.  No. 
Q.  Or  anything  of  that  sort  ? — A.  I  heard  nothing  of  that  kind, 
lie  most  that  I  heard — I  could  not  tell  you  now  of  any  single  mem¬ 
ber — but  there  were  expressions  of  displeasure  relative  to  him,  to 
he  effect  that  they  did  not  like  him,  that  he  had  a  bad  face,  and 
hose  things,  things  that  did  not  appeal  to  me,  and  did  not  impress 
hemselves  upon  me  at  all. 

Q.  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  you  have  told  us  all  of  the  bad  things 
hat  you  heard  about  him  up  to  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature? — ■ 
L  I  presume  not. 

Q.  Tell  us  the  rest. — A.  If  I  heard  anything  else,  Mr.  Austrian, 
hey  were  things  which  went  in  one  ear  and  went  out  the  other, 
rhich  I  considered  of  no  importance. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anything  about  his  trying  to  get  money  or  try- 
ng  to  have  legislation  held  up  so  as  to  procure  money,  or  to  take 
dvantage  of  the  tabling  of  legislation? — A.  No. 

Q.  Or  anything  of  that  sort? — A.  No. 

Q.  As  far  as  you  know? — A.  If  I  had - 

Q.  You  would  have  taken  hold  of  it? — A.  I  think  I  should  have 
poken  to  him  about  it. 

Q.  You  never  had  occasion  to  speak  to  him  about  it? — A.  No. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  you  have  told  us  pretty  much,  haven’t  you, 
vith  relation  to  the  relations  that  existed  between  you  and  Mr.  White, 
s  there  anything  more  to  add  up  to  the  adjournment  of  the  legis¬ 
ts  ture? — A.  Yes. 


590  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Anything  else  you  think  the  committee  ought  to  know  ?  A. 
don’t  know  whether  it  is  of  any  value  to  the  committee  or  anyon 
else.  If  you  desire  to  have  it  I  will  relate  to  you  one  incident  tha 
perhaps  throws  a  little  light  upon  what  you  term  “  relationship.” 
Senator  Burrows.  What  was  that  question?  My  attention  wa 

distracted  for  a  moment.  .  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  is  now  going  to  tell  us  some  further  mcider 

that  will  throw  light  on  the  “  relationship.”  . 

The  Witness.  I  do  that  at  the  request  of  counsel,  not  considenn 
it  myself  as  having  any  particular  weight, 

Mr.  Austrian.  Make  it  as  brief  as  you  can,  if  it  has  not  an 

weight 

The  Witness.  Well,  Mr.  White  was  a  street-car  man— a  street-cr, 
conductor— when  he  was  elected  to  the  legislature.  For  some  reaso 
or  the  other,  during  the  progress  of  the  session,  he  became  possess* 
of  the  knowledge  that  he  would  not  be  reinstated  in  his  job  when  1 
went  back.  He  came  to  me,  or  Mr.  Giblin,  who  was  secretary  on  tl 
minority  side  of  the  house,  and  I  can  t  tell  w  hich  if  it  w  as  M 
Giblin,  why  Mr.  Giblin  informed  me— but  I  think  Mr.  White  can 
to  me  personally  and  told  me  that  that  was  the  case,  and  asked  n 
if  I  would  not  communicate  with  the  street-car  people,  to  see  if  1 
could  not  be  reinstated- 


Mr.  Austrian.  And  did  you  write  a  letter  ? — A.  I  did,  and  th( 
wrote  to  me  and  informed  me  in  rather  polite  language  that 
considered  it  none  of  mv  business  and  that  he  would  not  be  rei 
stated.  I  showed  Mr.  White  that  letter,  and  I  think  he  kept  it,  b 

I  am  not  sure  if  he  retained  it  or  not.  .  .  - 

Q  The  fact  was  that  you  interceded  for  him?  If  that  is  of  ai 
importance - A.  Well,  ‘it  was  in  line  with  what  I  had  been  tr 


ing  to  do,  to  help  him.  .  .  , 

O  You  have  been  trying  to  help  him  ever  since  you  have  kno\ 

him;  is  that  correct?— A.  I  have  not  been  trying  very  hard  recent 
Q.  Up  to  the  1st  of  May  of  this  year? — A.  No;  not  up  to  the  1 

°f  Q^Up  tothe  lstNo  the  30th  of  April?— A.  Nor  up  to  the  30th 

^Q.  Up  to  -what  time,  Mr.  Browne? — A.  The  last  communii 
tion- 


Q.  No:  just  give  me  the  date,  up  to  what  time? — A.  I  can’t  a 

swer  your  question  that  way.  , 

O  All  right,  we  will  pass  that.  Mr.  Browne,  do  you  rememt 
theelection  of  the  United  States  Senator?— A.  Do  you  mean  the  eh 

tion  of  Mr.  Lorimer? 

O  Mr  Lorimer. — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909  ?-A.  The  26th  day  of  M: 
O.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  Mr.  White  on  the  24th  of  M. 
1909.  with  reference  to  the  election  of  the  United  States  Senator^ 

A.  Will  you  repeat  that  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  the  official  stenographer  read  the  questn 

(Question  read.)  , .  ,  ^ 

A.  Well,  now,  I  can  not  answer  that  question  because  do  \ou 

the  time  and  place?  _  ,  „  .  ,,  „  „ 

Q.  At  anv  time  or  place? — A.  I  don  t  know.  The  mattei  it 

have  been  referred  to  between  us,  I  can’t  tell  you. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOR1MER.  591 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  Mr.  White  on  the  25th  of  May  at 
ny  time  or  any  place;  at  any  time  on  the  25th  of  May  and  at  any 
lace  with  reference  to  the  election  of  United  States  Senator? — A. 
don’t  know;  the  subject  may  have  been  broached  by  one  or  the  other 
f  us,  I  don’t  know.  I  have  no  recollection  on  that  subject. 

Q.  None  at  all;  is  that  correct? — A.  I  think  that  is  correct. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  did  you  go  to  Mr.  White’s  room  on  the  night  of 
he  24th  of  May  or  did  you  send  for  Mr.  White  to  come  to  your 
oom? — A.  In  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  you  mean? 

Q.  Certainly. — A.  I  did  not  know  where  Mr.  White’s  room  was. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  asking  you.  Did  you  send  for  him  or  go  to  his  room 
n  the  24th  of  May  ? — A.  I  did  not  go  to  his  room  and  I  didn’t  send 
or  him. 

Q.  And  he  did  not  come  to  your  room? — A.  And  he  did  not  come 
-)  my  room,  that  I  have  any  recollection  of. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  on  the  night  of  the  25th  of 
[ay  did  you  send  for  him  ?  Did  you  go  to  his  room  or  did  he  come 
-)  vour  room  in  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  the  25th  of  Mav,  1909? — A. 
wish  you  would  put  those  not  so  involved.  If  you  will  ask  me  one 
uestion  at  a  time  I  will  answer  them. 

Q.  I  will.  Did  you  send  for  Mr.  Browne  to  come  to  your  room — - 
Ir.  White — at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  on  the  25th  of  May,  1909? — A. 
have  no'  recollection  of  anything  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  White  come  to  your  room  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel 
n  the  25th  of  May,  1909? — A.  He  might  have. 

Q.  At  any  time  on  the  night  or  evening  of  the  25th  of  May,  1909, 
id  you  have  any  talk  wuth  Mr.  White  with  reference  to  voting  for 
Tr.  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  On  the  night  of  the 
5th  of  May? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  anything  of  the  kind,  and 
hile  it  is  possible  that  that  subject  may  have  been  broached  by  one 
r  the  other  of  us  to  the  other,  I  have  no  independent  recollection 
ow  of  having  even  seen  Mr.  White  that  night. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  you  did  not  have  such  a  conversation? — A. 
lave  what  conversation? 

Q.  Any  conversation  with  reference  to  the  election  of  United 
tates  Senator  with  Mr.  White  on  the  night  of  the  25th  of  May? — 

.  I  am  not  saying  that  I  did  not  casually  meet  Mr.  White  some- 
hore  on  the  night  of  the  25th  day  of  May,  and  that  subject  of  the 
ection  of  Senator  Lorimer  was  not  casually  broached  by  one  or  the 
ther  of  us,  because  I  do  not  know;  it  may  have  been  and  it  may  not; 
don’t  know. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  remember  meeting  Mr.  Beckemeyer  and  Mr. 

>  hite  in  the  hallway  of  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  a  night  or  two  nights 
-fore  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  No;  it  was  a  longer  time 
‘fore  than  a  night  or  two  nights. 

Q.  On  the  night  that  you  did  meet  them  in  the  hallway  of  the  St. 
icholas  Llotel,  did  you  have  any  discussion  with  either  one  of  them 
ith  reference  to  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United  States  Sen¬ 
ior? — A.  Neither  of  them  was  in  a  condition  to  discuss  that. 

Q.  Both  were  drunk  weren’t  they? — A.  No;  Mr.  Beckemeyer  was 
it  drunk,  Mr.  White  was;  Mr.  Beckemeyer  had  been  drinking  so 
lat  he  showed  it  plainly.  Mr.  White  was  badly  intoxicated. 


592  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  And  then  you  told  Mr.  White  to  go  to  his  room,  did  you?- 

A.  I  did  not  teli  him  so.  Mr.  White - - 

Q.  Well,  that  is  an  answer.— A.  Well,  pardon  me  a  moment,  ] 

would  like  to  answer  this. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  the  witness  should  answer  it. 

A.  Mr.  White  was  speaking  very  loud,  talking  very  loud  and  Mr 
Beckemeyer  was  listening.  It  was  late;  it  was  between  12  and  . 
o’clock  at  night.  I  paused  a  moment.  One  of  them,  I  presume 
spoke  to  me  or  I  did  to  them,  and  I  suggested  that  it  was  a  bad  tim* 
for  them  to  be  in  the  hall  in  that  condition  talking  in  that  way  anc 
that  they  had  better  go  to  bed.  I  then  went  on. 

Q.  That  was  the  entire  transaction? — A.  That  was  the  entir 

trnnstiction 

Q.  You  did  not  have  a  talk  with  Mr.  Beckemeyer  about  it  tha 

night? — A.  Oh,  no. 

Q.  Or  with  Mr.  White? — A.  No.  . 

Q.  Now,  when,  for  the  first  time,  did  you  talk  with  Mr.  Whit 
about  voting  for  Mr.  Borimer,  if  at  all? — A.  Well,  I  can  not  tel 
you  how  long  it  was  before  the  day  of  the  election,  but  it  was  some 

where  in  the  neighborhood  of  a  week. 

Q.  That  is  a  week  prior  to  the  26th  of  May?— A.  It  may  hay 
been  two  or  three  days  less  than  a  week,  and  it  may  have  been  a  da 


more  than  a  week. 

Q.  That  is,  it  was  sometime  between 
before. 


-A.  A  number  of  day 


Q.  Between  five  and  ten  days? — A.  No;  it  was  not  ten  days. 

Q.  Five  and  eight  days?— A.  Well,  it  might  have  been  eight; 

don’t  think  so.  __  _  .  A  T  ,,  , ,  • 

Q.  You  fixed  eight  yourself? — A.  Yes,  I  know;  but  I  don  t  thin 

it  was  that  long;  it  may  have  been.  .  ,  9 

Q.  It  might  have  been  less  than  five  days,  too,  might  it  not. 


A.  No. 

Q.  It  was  not? — A.  No.  .  .  ,  n  ,  ,r  T  o 

Q.  When  did  you  become  active  in  the  election  of  Mr.  Boiimei  .- 

A.  What  do  you  mean  by  “  active  ?  ”  #  .  ,, 

Q.  Well,  when  did  vou  become  active  m  endeavoring  to  have  JM 

Lorimer  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate?  A.  W ell,  again,  sa 

what  do  you  mean  by  “  active?  ”  T 

6  Well,  you  tell  me  what  you  did  with  reference  to  Mr.  Bor 
mer’s  candidacy,  if  anything?— A.  Very  well.  I  think,  probabl 
two  weeks  or  more— it  might  have  been  three— before  the  election  < 
Senator  Borimer.  another  member  in  the  house,  a  Kepublican, 
friend  of  Mr.  Borimer’s,  came  to  me  and  broached  the  subject  of  M 
Borimer’s  election,  and  wanted  to  know  what  I  thought  about  1 
wanted  to  know  how  many  of  my  boys,  as  he  put  it,  or  my  tellov 
would  vote  for  Mr.  Borimer.  I  told  him  at  the  time  that  it  was 
matter  I  had  net  considered  at  all.  I  told  him  that  things  had  goth 
in  a  condition,  owing  to  the  length  of  the  deadlock,  that  a  good  mar 
of  them  were  willing  to  do  anything  within  reason  m  order  to  end  t_ 
condition.  I  told  him  that  I  could  not  speak  for  anybody  but  myse 
and  that  as  for  mvself  I  could  not  tell  him  whether  I  would  be  1 
Mr  Borimer  or  not  because  I  had  not  considered  it  and  I  would  lia 
to  think  it  over.  That  was,  as  I  say,  possibly  three  weeks  before  t 

election. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  593 

Q.  And  might  have  been  as  late  as  two  weeks  before  ? — A.  Oh,  no. 
Q.  Didn’t  you  just  state,  a  moment  ago,  that  two  weeks  or  possibly 
hree  weeks  before  ? — A.  I  may  have  said  so,  but  I  do  not  recall  now 
hat  I  used  that  expression  in  just  that  way.  I  think  it  was  between 
wo  and  three  weeks. 

Q.  Now,  then,  was  Mr.  Shannahan  the  first  man  that  spoke  to  you 
bout  it  ? — A.  No - 

Q.  Well,  who  was  it? — A.  Wait  a  minute.  I  think,  before  this 
lan  came  to  me - 

Q.  Well,  who  was  this  man? — A.  Wait  a  minute;  pardon  me. 

Q.  No;  I  want  the  man’s  name  so  we  will  know  who  you  are 
alking  about? — A.  Well,  I  can  not  answer  more  than  one  question 
t  once. 

Q.  The  question  is,  What  is  the  man’s  name? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman,  he  should  be  permitted 
o  answer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  want  to  know  the  name  of  the  man  who  came 
o  you? 

Senator  Burrows.  The  question  you  are  answering  is:  What  yon 
id,  if  anything,  with  relation  to  his  election.  The  reporter  will 
ead  the  original  question. 

(The  original  question  was  read.) 

A.  I  was  about  to  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Mr.  Austrian,  that 
n  second  thought  I  think  that  before  this  man,  to  whom  I  referred, 
ame  to  me  about  the  matter,  that  Mr.  Shannahan  one  day,  when  we 
,Tere  sitting  in  the  house  after  the  house  had  adjourned,  and  we  were 
iscussing  what  was  going  to  result  from  the  deadlock,  and  deplor- 
ig  the  condition,  I  believe  he  did  suggest  something  about  Mr. 
iOrimer  as  a  possibility;  but  it  was  a  mere  passing  suggestion,  and 
id  not  result  in  any  discussion. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  did  not  make  any  impression  on  your  mind  ? — 

l.  No. 

Q.  It  didn’t  make  sufficient  impression  to  have  you  consider  him  ? — 
..  No. 

Q.  Now,  tell  me - 

Senator  Burroavs.  Have  you  answered  all  of  that  question  you 
esire  to  answer? — A.  No. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  would  like  to  have  you  answer 
hat  question  in  full. — A.  Now,  I  answered  this  man  that  came  to 
le  in  that  way,  and  he  came  to  me  in  my  room  in  the  St.  Nicholas 
l  the  evening,  by  appointment  made  by  himself,  and  started 
nswering  him  in  the  way  that  I  have  stated.  I  told  him  that  I  could 
ot  at  that  time  give  him  any  answer  even  for  myself,  much  less  for 
ie  men  that  he  called  “  my  boys,”  or  “  my  fellows,”  but  that  I  would 
iter  if  he  wanted  me  to. 

Senator  Gamble.  This  conversation  is  subsequent  to  the  one  to 
hich  you  referred  as  having  occurred  with  Mr.  Shannahan? — A. 
es,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Shannahan  was  the  first  conversation? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  this  conversation  was  between  two  and  three 
eeks  prior  to  the  26th  day  of  May,  1909? — A.  That  is  my  distinct 
scollection.  I  did  not  charge  my  memory  with  it. 

70921°— S.  Rep.  942,  01-3 - 3S 


594  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Burrows.  Wait  a  minute.  Have  you  given  your  entir* 
answer  to  that  question? — A.  All  that  transpired  that  I  can  think  o: 
now,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  was  the  name  of  the  man  with  whom  yoi 
had  the  conversation? — A.  Edward  Shurtleff. 

Q.  He  was  the  speaker  of  the  house,  was  he  not? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  after  this  conversation  with  Mr.  Shurtleff  did  you  con 
sider  the  proposition  which  he  had  made,  or  suggestion? — A.  I  did 

Q.  You  gave  it  very  serious  thought  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  talked  it  over,  did  you,  with  your  constituency,  o 
your  “  fellows,”  as  you  call  them  ? — A.  Well,  first,  before  I  tried  t< 
influence  any  member,  or  before,  rather,  I  discussed  it  with  any  mem 
ber,  I  discussed  it  with  myself  and  some  of  the  members  and  some  o 
my  friends  outside  of  the  legislature  to  see  what  I  would  do  mysell 

Q.  And  then  when  did  you  make  up  what  you  would  do  yourself 
when  did  you  make  up  your  mind  as  to  what  you  would  do  your 
self? — A.  Well,  I  can’t  tell  you  that,  but  I  think  possibly  in  tb 
neighborhood  of  two  weeks  before  his  election. 

Q.  That  is,  within  a  week  after  your  talk? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  about  a  week? — A.  Yes;  I  don’t  know  as  I  did:  i 
was  a  short  time. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  discussion  with  Mr.  Lorimer  up  to  tha 
time;  that  is,  two  weeks  before  the  election,  with  reference  to  hi 
candidacy? — A.  Not  to  my  recollection.  I  will  suggest  to  you,  Mi 
Austrian,  that  I  never  knew  Senator  Lorimer  except  to  see  him  am 
by  reputation ;  a  mere  passing  acquaintance,  that  is,  hardly  a  speak 
mg  acquaintance,  prior  to  possibly  the  expiration  of  the  first  thir. 
of  the  session. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  ask  you  that  up  to  the  time  that  you  say  you  mad 
up  your  mind  to  be  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  which  you  say  was  about  tw 
weeks  prior  to  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  did  you  have  any  talk  witi 
Mr.  Lorimer  on  the  subject  of  his  candidacy  for  United  State 
Senator? — A.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Now,  after  you  made  up  your  mind  and  after  your  talk  wit 
Mr.  Shurtleff  and  weeks  or  few  days  of  consideration  by  yourseb 
did  you  have  any  talk  with  Mr.  Lorimer  with  reference  to  his  can 
didacy? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  for  the  first  time? — A.  I  can  not  tell  you. 

Q,  Can’t  tell  us  how  soon  after  you  had  made  up  your  mind  to  b 

with  him  that  vou  had  a  talk  with  him?— A.  No;  because  I  did  nc 

*/ 

notify  him  first. 

Q/Who  did  you  notify  first? — A»  My  recollection  is  that  I  gav 
Mr.  Shurtleff  an  answer. 

Q.  And  then  how  soon  after  you  had  given  Mr.  Shurtleff  an  ar 
swer,  did  you  have  your  first  talk  with  Mr.  Lorimer  on  the  subject  ?- 
A.  I  can  not  tell  you  that. 

Q.  Well,  was  it  a  week  before  the  26th  ? — A.  I  can  not  tell  you ; 
am  not  going  to  guess. 

Q.  Ten  days  before  ? — A.  I  am  not  going  to  guess  at  it. 

Q.  You  can  not  give  any  recollection  how  long  afterwards? — A. 
can  not,  because  the  time  was  not  long  enough,  and  I  can  not  say 
day  or  two  days  or  what. 

Q.  It  was  two  weeks? — A.  I  can’t  give  you  any  intelligent  answe: 

Q.  You  can  tell  us  that  you  met  Mr.  Beckemeyer  and  Mr.  White  i 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  595 

ie  hallway  of  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  some  days,  as  you  said,  before 
le  24th  day  of  May? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  still  you  can  not  tell  us  what  time  you  had  your  first  talk 
ith  Mr  Lorimer? — A.  I  can  not,  but  I  can  tell  you  this  much  that 
was  after  I  had  the  talk  with  Mr.  Shurtleff,  after  I  considered  the 
latter  myself.  My  opinion  is,  and  best  judgment  is,  that  it  was  after 
had  given  Mr.  Shurtleff  his  answer  and  it  was  some  days  after  that; 
lat  is  my  best  recollection  now. 

Q.  Then,  if  it  was  some  days  after  that  it  must  have  been  within  a 
eek  or  ten  days  or  less  of  the  26th  of  May  ? — A.  I  would  think  so. 

Q.  You  had  a  talk  with  Mike  Link  about  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer, 
idn’t  you? — A.  Why,  I  approached  him  on  the  subject. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Link  had  told  you,  didn’t  he,  that  he  had  beaten  you  to 
;  that  Mr.  Lorimer  had  talked  to  him  first,  didn’t  he? — A.  I  don’t 
^member  his  language,  but  I  do  remember  of  his  saying  to  me  that 
e  was  committed  to  Senator  Lorimer  and  was  going  to  vote  for  him. 
Q.  And  didn’t  he  tell  you  that  Mr.  Lorimer  had  asked  him  whether 
e  had  any  influence  with  you? — A.  Eepeat  the  question,  please? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  He  may  have,  I  do  not  recall  it. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  that  conversation  with  Mr.  Link  was? — ■ 
..  No;  I  can’t  tell  you  that. 

Q.  All  right.  Now,  then,  we  come  back  to  the  time  that  you  had 
our  first  conversation  with  Mr.  Lorimer.  You  had  then  made  up 
our  mind  to  be  with  Mr.  Lorimer,  had  you  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  had  told  Mr.  Shurtleff  of  that  fact,  hadn’t  you  ?-^-A. 
es. 

Q.  And  you  had  told  Mr.  Lorimer  of  that  fact? — A.  Conditionally. 
Q.  There  was  a  condition? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  what  was  that  condition,  sir? — A.  I  stated  to  Mr.  Shurt- 
■ff,  and  I  stated  afterwards  to  Mr.  Lorimer,  that  I  would  not  consent 
)  having  a  single  one  of  the  Democratic  votes  that  I  had  any  influ- 
ace  with,  cast  for  Senator  Lorimer,  unless  his  election  wTas  an  as- 
lred  thing.  That  I  would  not  have  those  votes  cast  away  absolutely, 
told  him  and  I  told  them  both  that  I  should  rely  upon  their  words, 
leir  words  as  men,  to  see  to  it  that  no  roll  call  was  started  for  the 
lection  of  Mr.  Lorimer  for  senator  until  enough  votes,  all  told,  were 
^cured. 

Q.  Will  you  say  if  I  understood  your  answer  correct.  The  condi- 
on  which  you  imposed  to  Mr.  Lorimer  and  Mr.  Shurtleff  was  that 
o  Democrat  whom  you  had  any  influence  with  would  vote  for  Mr. 
lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  until  Mr.  Lorimer  and  Mr.  Shurt- 
iff  had  assured  you  upon  their  honor  as  men  that  they  had  enough 
otes,  together  with  your  votes,  to  elect  Mr.  Lorimer ;  is  that  correct  ? — 
No. 

Q.  Wherein  is  it  wrong? — A.  Because  I  was  not  delivering  votes, 
told  them  that  no  one  would  with  my  consent.  I  did  not  carry 
round  those  votes  in  my  pocket,  Mr.  Austrian.  But  I  told  them 
fiat  none  of  them  would  be  cast  with  my  consent  until  that  time. 

Q.  Was  your  consent  asked  whether  or  not  the  Democratic  mem- 
ers  could  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Was  what? 

Q.  Was  your  consent  asked? — A.  I  was  consulted,  or  consulted 
lyself  with  every  one  of  the  men  that  did  vote  for  him.  No;  I  will 


596  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

take  that  back.  Not  with  every  one.  There  was,  perhaps,  oh,  may  b 
30  or  35  per  cent  of  them,  possibly,  I  did  not  see  personally  at  all 
but  that  other  members  that  were  with  me  in  the  movement  saw  foi 
me  or  took  it  upon  themselves  to  see. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  White? — A.  Yes;  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Whit 
about  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Beckemever  ? — A.  I  would  like  to  explain  hov 
I  saw  Mr.  White,  if  you  care  to  hear  it. 

Q.  We  will  come  back  to  it. — A.  All  right. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Beckemever  about  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ?- 
A.  I  think  I  was  given  to  understand  by  some  one  that  Mr.  Becke 
meyer  was  for  Mr.  Lorimer  and  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  ant 
that  for  some  reason  or  other  I  became  in  doubt  on  the  matter,  ant 
that  I  spoke  to  him  about  it.  Now,  that  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  You  spoke  to  him  about  it  on  the  morning  of  the  26th  of  Maj 
didn’t  you,  right  when  the  joint  assembly  was  about  to  convene? — A 
I  think  I  spoke  to  him  about  it  the  day  before,  first,  if  my  recollec 
tion  serves  me. 

Q.  Didn't  you  speak  to  him  about  it  on  the  morning  of  the  26th  o 
May.  after  the  joint  assembly  had  convened? — A.  Possibly  I  aske< 
him  that - 

Q.  Did  not — I  beg  your  pardon. — A.  Possibly  I  asked  him  at  tha 
time  if  he  had  experienced  any  change  of  heart  or  if  he  was  going  t 
vote  for  him. 

Q.  Did  not  Mr.  Alschuler,  Mr.  Browne,  the  Democratic  membe 
from  Aurora,  inform  you  that  there  was  some  doubt  as  to  Mr.  Becke 
meyer,  and  didn't  he"  bring  Mr.  Beckemeyer  up,  and  did  not  Mi 
Beckemeyer  come  up  or  you  go  to  Mr.  Beckemeyer  and  ask  him  wit 
reference  to  it? — A.  That  is  possible. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  Charley  Luke?— A.  What  about;  voting  fo 

Mr.  Lorimer  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  to  Mr.  Shephard  ? — A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  vou  talk  to  Joe  Clark?— A.  Yes;  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  oh,  yes;  did  you? — A.  I  would  like  to  say  at  thi 
time  the  reason  I  answered  saying  I  could  not  tell  you  when  I  spok 
to  Senator  Lorimer  first  about  being  for  him  is  because  that  afte 
the  determination  had  been  made  on  my  part  to  be  with  him,  and 
had  spoken  to  a  considerable  number  of  my  people  about  it  and  ha 
been  told  how  many  there  were  others  that  were  going  to  vote  fc 
him.  from  that  time  on  the  meetings  between  Mr.  Lorimer  an 
myself  and  Mr.  Shurtleff  and  a  number  of  others  were  quite  frc 
qiient.  but  I  can  not  tell  you  just  when  they  started,  nor  I  could  nc 
tell  you  the  date  of  each  one. 

q:  That  is  all  right,  Mr.  Browne.  They  started  approximatel 
a  week  or  ten  days  before  the  election? — A.  Oh,  I  can  not  fix  tli 
time,  Mr.  Austrian,  but  it  was  not  very  long  before  the  election,  nc 
many  days,  that  those  meetings  started. 

Q.  Well,  will  you  say  from  five  to  eight  days;  is  that  your  reco 
lection  of  it?  All  I  want  is  your  best  recollection. — A.  Well,  nov 
if  I  was  giving  you  my  best  judgment  as  to  when  I  first  spoke  t 
Senator  Lorimer  personally  about  the  matter,  I  would  say  it  w* 
somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  a  week. 

Q.  A  week? — A.  Somewhere. 


' 

INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  597 

Q.  What — and  then  you  conferred  with  him  frequently,  did  you 
ot? — A.  Oh,  yes. 

Q.  Every  clay  ? — A.  I  presume  every  night.  The  conferences  were 
t  night  mostly.  Every  night  during  the  stay  in  Springfield. 

Q.  Yes.  And  those  conferences  lasted  some  hours,  didn’t  they? — 
L.  Sometimes  they  did,  and  sometimes  there  were  a  dozen  of  them 
1  an  evening. 

Q.  And  you  kept  Senator  Lorimer  posted  as  to  your  movements 
ith  reference  to -his  candidacy,  did  you? — A.  We  all  kept  each 
tlier  posted,  just  as  any  other  campaign  committee  would  do. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  asking  you  whether  you  kept  him  posted  as  to  your 
lovements  with  reference  to  his  candidacy? — A.  I  have  answered 
iat. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  keep  him  posted? — A.  We  all  kept  each  other 
osted. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  know  is,  did  you  tell  Mr.  Lorimer,  the  candi- 
ate  for  United  States  Senator,  as  to  what  you  were  doing  toward 
urthering  his  candidacy? — A.  I  presume  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  from  time  to  time  who, if  anyone, had  pledged  his 
ote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  to  you? — A.  Well,  now,  as  to  whether  I  went 
ver  the  list  and  told  him  specifically  the  ones  at  any  one  time,  I 
an't  tell  you.  I  presume,  however,  that  I  did,  but  I  did  assure  him, 
did  finally  assure  him  that  there  would  be  30  Browne  Democrats 
ote  for  him. 

Q.  That  is,  you  gave  him  that  assurance? — A.  I  gave  him  the 
ssurance  that  that  would  be  the  fact  upon  the  best  information  that 
could  gather. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  did  you  have  a  list  of  those  30  Browne 
)emocrats? — A.  What  do  you  mean  by  a  list? 

Q.  I  mean,  did  you  have  a  tabulation  or  record  of  the  30  Browne 
)emocrats  who  were  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  I  presume 
had  several  tabulations,  because  I  went  over  them  repeatedly  and 
epeatedly  and  some  I  saw  a  number  of  times. 

Q.  But  you  know  whether  you  had  a  list  of  the  bunch  you  checked 
ff,  the  Browne  Democrats,  whom  you  agreed  or  said  to  Mr.  Lorimer 
rould  vote  for  him  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  told  you  I 
)resmne  I  had  several  such  lists. 

Q.  Well,  don’t  you  know  whether  you  had  a  list? — A.  I  told  you 
presumed  I  had  several  of  them. 

Q.  Well,  I  want  to  know ;  not  your  presumption,  but  if  you  have 
ny  knowledge  on  the  subject? — A.  I  have  no  distinct  recollection 
if  any  particular  tabulation. 

Q.  But  you  have  a  recollection  of  a  tabulation? — A.  I  certainly 
iad  tabulations  of  them. 

Q.  And  one  of  those  tabulations  was  in  a  book,  was  it  not? — A. 
sot  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  You  didn’t  have  them  in  a  memorandum  book  that  you  checked 
>ff  from  time  to  time? — A.  I  had  no  memorandum  book. 

Q.  No  book  of  any  kind  in  which  you  kept  this  list  of  Browne 
democrats  who  were  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  I  may 
lave  had  one  of  the  legis — I  may  have  had  one  of  the  little  handy 
•efererice  legislative  books  containing  the  names  of  the  members  of 
he  legislature,  their  places  of  residence,  and  other  information,  such 
is  is  useful  to  the  men  there  in  the  house. 


598  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Mr.  Brown,  when  did  you  start  to  ascertain  and  round  up 
if  I  may  use  the  expression,  these  thirty  Browne  Democrats  whom 
you  later  told  Mr.  Lorimer  would  vote  for  him? — A.  Oh,  a  short 
time  after  Mr.  Shurtleff  broached  the  subject  to  me,  a  few  days 
afterwards. 

Q.  You  did  not  round  them  all  up?  You  started.  When  did  yor 
finally  conclude  the  inquiry  or  investigation  or  caucusing  that  re¬ 
sulted  in  that  statement  to  Mr.  Lorimer  that  you  had  thirty  Browm 
Democrats  who  would  vote  for  him? — A.  I  never  told  him  I  hac 
thirty  Browne  Democrats  that  would  vote  for  him. 

Q.  Well,  thirty  Democrats? — A.  I  never  told  him  I  had  thirty 
Democrats  that  would  vote  for  him. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  him? — A.  I  told  him  that  according  to  my 
best  information  that  I  could  gather  from  talking  with  the  members 
that  there  would  be  thirty  Browne  Democrats  that  would  vote 
for  him. 

Q.  Well,  all  right.  When  did  y7ou  make  that  statement  to  him?— 
A.  Well,  I  can  not  tell  you  that,  but  not  later  than  the  24th  of  May 
and  perhaps  the  latter  part  of  the  preceding  week. 

Q.  It  was  between  the  24th  of  May  and  the  preceding  week? — A 
No;  I  didn’t  say  so. 

Q.  Well,  yrou  said  not  later  than  the  24th  of  May. — A.  That  is 
right ;  but  it  might  have  been  the  latter  part  of  the  preceding  week 

Q.  And  yTou  can  not  give  us  any  more  definite  information  on  thal 
subject? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  said  that  some  of  those  members  you  saw  only  once?— 
A.  Some  of  them  I  didn’t  see  at  all. 

Q.  Of  the  Browne  Democrats? — A.  Yes;  some  of  them  I  nevei 
spoke  to  about  it. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  who  you  did  not  speak  to  about  it,  of  tin 
Browne  Democrats? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Who  ? — A.  I  do  not  think  I  ever  spoke  to  Mr.  Abrahams  aboui 
it;  my  impression  is  I  did  not  speak  to  Mr.  Forrest  about  it.  I  dc 
not  think  I  ever  spoke  to  J.  Geisgawich  about  it. 

Q.  The  man  Abrahams  is  the  saloon  keeper  who  testified  on  botl 
the  Browne  trials,  is  he  not? — A.  I  believe  he  is  engaged  in  th( 
saloon  business. 

Q.  And  he  testified  in  the  defense  of  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  did  h( 
not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Geisgawich  is  dead,  is  he  not? — A.  I  am  so  informed. 

Q.  And  what  is  the  other  member? — A.  Forrest. 

Q.  Where  does  he  come  from? — A.  Chicago. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  Mr.  Wilson  about  it? — A.  What  Wilson \ 

Senator  Burrows.  Pardon  me.  Do  you  not  think  it  would  be  wel 
to  close  his  answer  to  that  question? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  yes;  pardon  me.  I  thought  he  had  finished 
It  is  my  mistake. — A.  I  may  have  spoken  to  George  Hilton  about  it 
I  am  not  certain;  I  would  be  inclined  to  think  I  did  not.  I  say  1 
spoke  to  Charles  Luke  about  it;  I  do  not  think  I  did;  I  think  h( 
spoke  to  me  first  about  it,  having  heard  of  the  movement,  and  I  third 
he  was  the  first  one  that  spoke  to  me  first,  rather  than  me  speaking  t< 
him ;  that  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  Mr.  Luke  is  the  man  who  put  in  nomination  Lawrenee  Stringer 
wasn’t  he,  for  United  States  Senator  on  the  Democratic  side? — A.  J 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  599 


>elieve  so.  I  am  not  certain  whether  I  spoke  to  Mb .  MhGruire  about 
t  •  I  may  have.  I  do  not  think  I  spoke  to  Edward  Murphy  about  it. 
Ynd  there  are  a  number  of  others. 

Q.  Do  you  have  anyone - A.  And  the  reason,  I  will  say  to  you 

his,  the  reason  I  did  not  speak  to  them  was  not  at  all  because  I  was 
lot  after  their  vote  or  not  because  I  was  not  desirous  of  getting  them 

o  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  but  it  was  because - 

(At  this  point  Senator  Heyburn  retired  from  the  committee.) 
hev  were  approached  and  spoken  to  about  the  matter  either  at  my 
•equest  or  otherwise  by  lieutenants,  if  you  please,  or  associates  of  mine 
n  the  management  of  that  side  of  the  house,  who  were  better  ac¬ 
quainted  with  them  or  closer  to  them  than  myself. 

Q.  Now,  among  those  lieutenants  was  Robert  E.  vv  ilson,  v  asn  t 

_ A.  No;  the  closest  men  to  me  were  Anton  J.  Surmack,  who  was 

di airman  of  the  steering  committee,  and  my  roommate,  and  John 
Wardell ;  those  two  men  were  closer  to  me  than  anybody  else. 

Q.  But  Mr.  Wilson  was  one  of  your  lieutenants,  wasnt  he? — 

A  No. 

Q,  He  was  not? — A.  No~  oat-  * 

Q.  Did  he  make  a  trip  to  St.  Louis  for  you  ? — A.  k  or  me  { 

Q.  Yes.— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  go  at  your  request? — A.  No  ,sir. 

Q.  At  no  time?— A.  No,  sir.  ,  ,,  ,9 

Q.  Did  he  go  as  your  substitute? — A.  What  do  you  mean  by  that. 

Q.  Well,  because  you  could  not  go. — A.  No. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No. 

Q  Mr  Browne,  you  know  that  Mr.  Wilson  went  to  St.  Eouis  on 

the  16th  or  15th  day  of  July,  1909,  don’t  you  ?— A  Yes. 
q.  And  you  know  that  you  were  to  have  been  there,  don  t  you . 

^  N() 

"  Q.  You  were  not  to  have  been  there  at  all? — A.  No;  I  regretted 
that  I  could  not  be  there;  I  would  have  gone,  but  I  was  not  well,  with 

Mr.  Wilson.  ,.  ,.  ,  ,. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Wilson  did  not  go  at  your  suggestion,  dictation,  or 

direction,  did  he? — A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

q  Well,  you  would  know  if  he  went  at  your  direction,  would  you 
not  i _ A.  I  think  I  would.  I  wasn't  as  much  out  of  my  mind  at  the 

IVq‘  And  did  you  not  write  to  various  members  of  the  legislature 
who  were  at  St." Louis  on  that  day  that  you  were  sorry  that  you  could 
not  get  there,  because  you  had  ptomaine  poisoning? — A.  No. 

Q  You  didn’t,  eh?— A.  No.  T  wrote  to  one  or  two— I  wrote  to  one 
or  two,  possibly  more,  but  I  don’t  think  so,  regretting  the  fact  that 

I  could  not  be  there  with  Mr.  Wilson.  # 

Q.  Because  you  had  ptomaine  poisoning?— A.  Well,  1  did  not  at 
the  time;  I  was  just  recovering;  I  was  just  able  to  be  up  around.  1 
went  home — I  think  I  went  home  to  Ottawa,  my  home,  that  mg.it,  I 

am  not  sure  whether  that  night  or  the  next  day.  . 

Q.  Now.  Mr.  Browne,  I  desire  to  ask  you  again  if  Mr.  \\  ilson  did 
not  see  some  of  the  minority  Browne  faction  with  refeience  to  getting 
the  votes  for  Lorimer? — A.  Oh,  I  don’t  know  about  that. 

Q.  Didn’t  he  report  to  you  the  men  whom  he  had  seen? — A.  I  have 

no  recollection  of  it. 


600  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER. 

Q.  TTill  you  say  that  he  did  not? — A.  No;  because  of  this,  if  voi 
will  pardon  me.  In  all  probability  there  were  some  members  tha 
were  seen  by  a  dozen  of  us,  or  I  will  say  a  half  dozen  of  us,  one  afte 
another,  and  I  can  not  tell  you  who  saw  each  one  and  who  did  not. 

Q.  Now,  these  30  that  you  have  mentioned  as  being  the  ones  whou 
you  notified  Mr.  Lorimer  with  respect  to,  I  would  like  to  have  voi 
call  those  off  and  give  us  the  names  of  those  30  men? — A.  Well,  I  wil 
do  my  best.  I  may  make  an  error;  it  won’t  be  much  of  a  one 
Emanuel  Abrahams.  Pardon  me  if  I  check  them  as  I  go  along,  so  . 
may  know. 

Q.  All  right. — A.  J.  R.  Allison,  George  TV.  Alschuler,  H.  J.  C 
Beckemeyer.  Now  pardon  me.  Did  you  say  a  list  of  those  that  ! 
notified  Mr.  Lorimer  that  I  had? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  Well,  I  tell  you - - 

Q.  The  30? — A.  I  understand;  I  told  you  a  while  ago  I  was  no 
sure  that  I  ever  enumerated  the  list  to  Senator  Lorimer. 

Q.  Well,  tell  us  the  list  you  had  in  mind  of  the  30  Democrats.- 
A.  That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  do. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  ask — I  got  the  names  and  I  was  looking  a 
my  list — I  got  Abrahams,  but  I  did  not  get  two  or  three  others. 

A.  Allison,  Alschuler,  Beckemeyer,  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  Anton  J 
Cermak,  Joseph  S.  Clark,  James  H.  Corcoran,  J.  H.  De  Wolf,  Martii 
J.  Dillon,  Michael  Fahey,  Edward  D.  Forrest,  A.  M.  Foster,  J.  Geisga 
wich,  Thomas  Gorman,  John  Griffin,  George  Hilton,  Edward  J 
Murphy,  P.  F.  Murray,  Henry  A.  Shephard,  B.  F.  Staymates,  P.  J 
Sullivan,  John  D.  Walsh,  John  C.  Wardell,  Robert  E.  Wilson.  ] 
missed  one  somewhere ;  that  is  29. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  White. — A.  Yes;  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  Mr.  Browne - 

Senator  Burrows.  Pardon  me  until  I  ask  him  a  question.  Yoi 
mentioned  the  name  of  Mr.  Wilson? — A.  Robert  E.  Wilson. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  is? — A.  I  do  not,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Go  on. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Browne,  I  now  desire  to  ask  you  whether  voi 
spoke  personally  with  reference  to  this  subject-matter,  with  referenci 
to  getting  any  one  of  these  30  men  whose  names  you  have  mentioned 
to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Whether  I  did  what? 

Q,.  If  you  spoke  to  any  one  of  these  30  men,  barring  yourself,  mak 
ing  29,  with  reference  to  getting  any  one  of  these  men  to  vote  foi 
Mr.  Lorimer  for  TTnited  States  Senator? — A.  Let  me  see  if  I  under 
stand  you. 

Q.  I  will  put  it  in  another  way.  Did  you  ask  Abrahams  to  vofi 
for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? — A.  My  recollection  is  that  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Mr.  Allison  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? — A.  I  thinl 
1  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Mr.  Alschuler  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Yes 
I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Mr.  Beckemever  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A 
Yes ;  I  spoke  with  him  about  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Mr.  Cermak  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  No;  J 
didn't  have  to;  I  told  Mr.  Cermak - 

Q.  You  have  answered  it. — A.  Well,  I  haven’t  answered  it. 

Q.  Well,  you  say  “  No;”  that  is  an  answer. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  601 

Senator  Burrows.  I  think  the  witness  ought  to  be  permitted  to 
nswer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  no  disposition  to  cut  the  wit- 
ess  there,  but  if  he  says  “No”  it  is  not  necessary  for  him  to  give  us 
conversation. 

A.  I  am  not  trying  to  give  the  conversation,  but  “No”  is  not  an 
itelligent  answer  to  the  question,  from  my  standpoint. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  witness  ought  to  be  permitted  to  answer. 
Mr.  Austrian.  Very  well,  go  ahead. — A.  No;  I  told  Mr.  Cermak 
5  soon  as  I  had  made  up  my  mind  that  I  would  entertain  the  view 
r  the  movement  to  elect  Mr.  Lorimer,  I  told  Mr.  Cermak  how  I 
dt  about  it  and  Mr.  Cermak  immediately  agreed  with  me  and  said, 
ell,  he  heartily  indorsed  it  and  said  he  would  be  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
Mr.  Lorimer  was  a  candidate.  Anvhow,  that  is  as  I  understand 
now.  as  I  recall  it.  He  had  a  personal  regard,  a»  friendship,  for 
>me  reason  or  other  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  something;  I  don’t  recall  now 
lout  the  origin  of  it. 

Q.  Up  to  the  time  that  Mr.  Shurtleff  had  spoken  to  you  you  had 
i  personal  regard  or  anything  of  the  sort  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  had 
lu  ? — A.  Oh,  yes ;  I  had. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Lie  said  Mr.  Cermak. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  putting  another  question.  I  said,  up  to  the 
me  that  Mr.  Shurtleff  spoke  to  you  you  were  not  with  Mr.  Lor- 
aer? — A.  There  was  nothing  in  Mr.  Shurtleff’s  conversation  to 
tuse  any  affection  to  bud  or  blossom  in  my  system. 

Q.  There  were  no  fruits  and  flowers  in  that  conversation? — A.  No: 
ir  any  tnusic. 

Q.  But  there  were  fruits  and  flowers  and  music  in  other  transac- 
ons  you  had  with  Mr.  White? — A.  You  would  have  to  be  more 
>ecific  about  it  than  that. 

Q.  In  your  trips  with  Mr.  White  there  were  fruits,  flowers,  and 
usic,  weren’t  there? — A.  Perhaps  to  a  mind  that  had  anything  of  a 
•ve  of  the  pleasant  things  of  life  perhaps  there  were  music  and 
iwers,  and  perhaps  that  would  be  the  understanding  with  such  a 
irson. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  referring  to  the  trips  that  you  made  with  Mr. 
'kite  across  the  lake  that  you  yourself  referred  to  as  having  fruits, 
iwers,  and  music? — A.  No;  I  did  not  see  any  fruits  and  flowers. 

Q.  Well,  flowers  and  music? — A.  Music  and  flowers. 

Q.  Well,  flowers  and  music  I  put  it. — A.  Well,  I  did  not. 

Q.  That  was  not  a  poetic  trip,  was  it? — A.  Part  of  it  was  very 
ietic;  yes. 

Q.  You  did  not  look  at  it  as  one  of  the  things  that  would  elevate  a 
iture  who  looked  only  to  the  high  ideals  of  life,  did  you,  after  you 
•turned  from  your  trip? — A.  I  looked  at  it,  a  part  of  it,  as  being  a 
sry,  very  pleasant  trip. 

Q.  You  referred  to  it  with  reference  to  hell,  didn’t  you,  when  you 
rote  about  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  say  “  after  the  hell  we  have  had  ?  ” — A.  The  vaca- 
on  which  was  not  comprised  in  that  trip,  and  what  I  referred  to  in 
hat  you  speak  of  now  had  reference  more  accurately  and  in  fact 
ally  to  a  time  preceding,  about  twenty-four  hours  preceding  or  a 
day  preceding  the  lake  trip,  and  so  far  as  Mr.  White  was  concerned, 
clay  or  two,  two  or  three  days  after  the  conclusion  of  the  lake  trip. 


602  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  on  these  lake  trips,  Mr.  Browne,  there  were  considerable  o 
those  things  that  men  do  not  refer  to  as  the  higher  ideals  that  yoi 
have  just  tried  to  impress  us  with;  is  that  correct? — A.  No. 

Q,.  Mr.  Browne,  did  you  see  Mr.  Clark  ? — A.  Where  ? 

Q.  For  the  purpose  of  asking  him  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer — Jo 
Clark  ?— A.  I  think  that  I  did ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  J.  H.  De  Wolf  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  Yes 
I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Mr.  Griffin — John,  I  think  it  is — John  Griffin  ?- 
A.  I  am  not  sure  whether  I  asked  John  Griffin  or  whether  another  per 
son  asked  him  for  me.  I  know  that — well,  I  don  t  know ;  my  impres 
si  on  is  he  spoke  to  me  about  it.  Afterwards  I  presume  I  spoke  t 
him. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Mike  Link  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A., 
broached  the  subject  to  him,  and  he  replied  as  I  have  told  you. 

Q.  That  he  had  had  a  talk  with  Mr.  Lorimer  direct,  didn’t  he 
He  said  he  had  beat  you  to  it,  didn’t  he?— A.  I  don’t  recall  the  term 
he  used,  but  he  informed  me  that  he  had  already  committed  himsel 
to  Senator  Lorimer. 

Q.  You  told  him  that  Mr.  Lorimer — or  did  he  tell  you  that  Mi 
Lorimer  had  asked  him  whether  or  not  he  had  any  influence  wit 
Lee  O’Neil  Browne? — A.  He  may  have,  as  I  have  told  yon,  and 
have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Charles  Luke  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  M 
recollection  is  that  he  spoke  to  me  about  it  first, 

Q.  And  then  you  spoke  to  him  about  it  second,  didn’t  you,  or  aftei 

wards? — A.  Well,  I  presume  so;  yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Robert  E.  Wilson  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A. 
do  not  recall  whether  I  did  or  whether  he  knew  of  the  movemer 
and  simply  commenced  to  discuss  it  wTith  me;  I  can  t  tell  you. 

Q,  Did  you  ask  Charles  A.  White  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  ? 

(Senator  Heyburn  returned  and  took  his  seat  with  the  committee. 

A.  Well,  a  few  days  before  Mr.  Lorimer’s  election  I  broached  th 
subject  to  Mr.  White.  The  reason  I  was  hesitating  then,  I  was  trj 
ing  to  fix  the  place  where  I  had  this  talk  with  him.  I  am  not  sun 
my  recollection  is  that  it  was  somewhere  in  the  lobby  of  the  S 
Nicholas  Hotel  in  the  daytime  or  early  evening — I  think  in  the  da) 
time.  I  broached  the  subject  to  him,  and  Mr.  White  informed  in 
at  that  time,  in  substance,  that  he  was  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimei 
that  he  had  told  Mr.  Lorimer  so  himself ;  that  he  had  spoken  to  M 
Lorimer  amout  it,  and  he  told  me  why  he  was  going  to  vote  for  hin 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  talk  you  have  had  with  reference  to  his  votin 
for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Well,  now,  I  can’t  say  as  to  that.  I  presun 
that  between  that  time  and  the  time  of  Mr.  Lorimer’s  election  it 
very  possible  that  Mr.  Wliite  may  have  broached  the  subject  to  m 
or  rather  the  matter  may  have  been  mentioned  between  us  not  one 
but  more  times  than  once.  I  don’t  know,  I  have  no  recollection  of  i 

Q.  That  is  between  the  24th  and  26th  of  May;  is  that  correct ?- 
A.  I  don’t  say  that.  I  say  between  the  time  I  first  spoke  to  M 
White  about  it,  and  the  time  of  Senator  Lorimer’s  election,  it  is  ver 
possible,  in  fact  it  is  probable,  that  the  matter  was  mentioned  betwee 
us. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  603 

Q,.  Well,  didn’t  you  just  tell  us  that  the  first  time  that  you  talked 
o  him  on  the  subject  was  within  a  couple  of  days  prior  to  Mr. 
jorimer’s  election  ? — A.  I  never  said  anything  of  the  kind. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Will  you  read  back,  Mr.  Reporter. 

(Question  and  answer  read  as  follows:  “  Q.  Did  you  ask  Charles 
V.  White  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Well,  a  few  days  before 
Jr.  Lorimer’s  election  I  broached  the  subject  to  Mr.  White.”) 

The  Witness.  Now,  was  I  right  or  wrong? 

Q.  A  few  days.  When  would  you  say  that  few  days  was? — A.  I 
an  not  tell  you. 

Q.  Well,  how  many  days? — A.  Well,  I  would  say  that  it  was  less 
han  a  week,  how  much  less  I  can  not  tell  you. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  us  every  conversation  you  ever  had  with 
Jharles  A.  White  from  a  few  days  before  up  to  and  including  the 
late  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  on  this  subject? — A.  I  have  told 
Tou  all  I  can  remember;  the  only  conversation  that  I  have  any 
■ecollection  of. 

Q.  Oh,  yes.  Then  that  is  every  conversation  you  recall  you  ever 
lad  with  Mr.  White? — A.  That  is  the  only  one  I  have  any  distinct 
•ecollection  of  at  this  time,  but  I  have  not  told  you  all  of  that  conver¬ 
sion. 

Q.  Well,  tell  us  the  rest  of  it.  I  thought  you  had. — A.  He  said 
o  me  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  a  friend  of  organized  labor;  that  is,  that 
>e  had  that  reputation,  and  he  was  told  so  by  men  prominent  in 
abor  circles;  that  Mr.  Lorimer  had  come- up  from  a  street-car  man 
limself  and  that  he  was  one  and  that  he  felt  very  kindly  toward 
lim.  That  was  in  substance. 

Q.  Is  that  all  the  conversation? — A.  Oh,  I  presume  not,  but  that 
s  all  I  can  recollect. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  only  conversation  you  ever  had  with  Mr.  White 
>n  that  subject  that  you  can  recall? — A.  That  I  now  have  any  recol¬ 
ection  of. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  were  you  in  St.  Louis  on  the  21st  day  of 
Tune,  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  members  of  the  legislature  did  you  meet  in  St.  Louis  on 
hat  day  ? — A.  I  met  Harry  Shephard — or  Henry  Shephard,  prop- 
rly  speaking;  we  knew  him  as  Harry  in  the  House— Henry  Shep- 
lard;  I  met  Michael  S.  Link;  I  met,  I  think  I  met,  Mr.  Beckemeyer; 

met  Charles  Luke.  I  had  somewhat  of  an  impression  that  I  met  Joe 
hark  there,  but  Joe  says  that  I  didn’t,  and  I  think,  after  thinking 
t  all  over,  I  think  Joe  Clark  is  right;  I  do  not  think  I  saw  him 
here. 

Q.  Anyone  else? — A.  No;  not  that  I  recall  now. 

Q.  Let  use  see  if  I  get  it  right.  Beckemeyer,  Shephard,  Link, 
mke,  and,  you  thought,  Joe  Clark? — A.  No;  I  say  that  was  my  first 
mpression ;  but  Joe  Clark  is  positive  that  I  did  not,  and,  thinking  it 
)ver,  I  am  satisfied  he  is  correct  and  that  he  was  not  there  at  all. 

Q.  That  is  on  the  21st  of  June? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Do  you  know  he  was  down  in  St.  Louis  and  met  Mr.  Wilson 
m  the  16th  of  July? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  don’t  know? — A.  No. 

Q.  Wilson  never  told  you? — A.  I  didn’t  say  that  Mr.  Wilson 
lever  told  me;  ho  may  have  told  ;ne. 


604  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Well,  what  do  you  say  about  it? — A.  I  have  no  recollection  oi 
him  saying  anything. 

Q.  You  don't  recall  whether  you  and  Wilson - A.  I  do  not  recol¬ 

lect  any  conversation  I  had  with  Mr.  Wilson  on  that  matter  as  tc 
who  he  met  specifically. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  where  did  you  meet  these  several  gentlemen,  whon 
you  met  in  St.  Louis  on  the  2ist  of  June,  whose  names  you  have  men¬ 
tioned? — A.  I  had  a  room  at  the  Southern  Hotel.  I  have  an  idea 
I  have  an  impression  that  I  met  one  of  them,  possibly  two,  in  the 
lobby.  I  might  have  got  that  confused,  however,  with  another  trij 
down  there,  prior  to  that,  when  I  met  a  number  of  the  southern  Illi¬ 
nois  fellows.  But,  anyway,  I  met  them  in  my  room. 

Q.  You  met  them  in  your  room  at  the  Southern  Hotel? — A.  Yes 
sir. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  them  there  by  appointment? — A.  Yes;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  write  to  them  or  wire  them  or  telephone  to  them  t( 
meet  you  there  on  that  day? — A.  I  do  not  think  that  I  personally 
sent  a"  single  notification;  indeed,  that  is  my  recollection;  I  may  bt 
in  error  about  that,  but  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Q.  At  any  rate,  you  met  them? — A.  I  caused  them  to  be  notified 
yes,  that  I  was  going  to  be  there. 

Q.  At  St.  Louis  on  the  21st  day  of  June? — A.  That  is  my  recollec 
tion ;  ves. 

Q.  You  had  met  Mr.  White,  in  Chicago,  at  the  Briggs  House  oi 
or  about  the  16th  day  of  June,  hadn’t  you? — A.  Oh,  no.  I  went  t< 
Chicago — I  went  to  Chicago  on  the  15th  day  of  June,  and  I  was  ii 
Chicago  from  the  15th  day  of  June  until  the  19th  day  of  June.  Mr 
White  was  there  on  the  13th ;  came  on  the  13th  and  stayed  until  th< 
17th.  Now,  he  was  in  the  hotel  during  that  time,  and  I  give  yoi 
those  dates,  not  from  any  independent  recollection  of  my  own,  bu 
merely  from  consulting  or  looking  at  the  hotel  register.  I  have  s 
recollection  of  his  being  there  along  at  that  time  and  my  being  there 

Q.  And  did  you  tell  Mr.  White  that  you  were  going  down  to  St 
Louis  after  you  left  Chicago  in  a  few  days? — A.  Did  I  tell  Mr 
White  that  I  was? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  No. 

Q.  You  met  Mr.  White  here  between  the  13th  and  17th  of  June 
didn’t  you? — A.  Where? 

Q.  In  Chicago,  at  the  Briggs  House. — A.  I  did  not  meet  Mr.  Whit 
until  I  went  there  on  the  15th. 

Q.  Yes.  And  you  met  him  that  day  or  the  next  day,  did  yoi 
not? — A.  My  impression  is  that  I  met  him  between  the  15th  and  th 
day  that  he  went  away,  the  17th;  my  impression  is  that  I  met  bin 
several  times  in  the  lobby  or  about  the  hotel. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  am  asking  you ;  when  you  met  Mr.  White  at  th 
Briggs  House,  on  the  15th  or  16th  or  17th  of  June,  1909,  did  you  no 
tell  Mr.  White  you  were  going  to  be  in  St.  Louis? — A.  No;  nor  an; 
other  time  did  I  tell  him. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  were  not  friendly  enough  with  him  to  tell  him,  were  you  ?- 
A.  Certainly,  I  was  friendly  enough  if  I  had  any  occasion  to  relat 
my  business  to  Mr.  White ;  t  might  have  done  it. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  in  St.  Louis? — A.  What  is  that? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  605 

Q.  What  was  your  business  in  St.  Louis? — A.  My  business  in  St, 
Amis  was  to  see  these  members  whose  names  have  been  mentioned. 

Q.  TV  hat  for? — A.  Well,  I  came  to  Chicago  in  the  first  place  from 
)ttawa.  I  saw  a  number  of  my  friends  in  Chicago  during  the  few 
ays  I  stayed  there.  I  did  not  go  directly  to  St.  Louis  from  there;  I 
rent  to  Springfield.  I  had  business  before  the  board  of  pardons,  or 
on  can't  say  it  was  the  board  of  pardons,  because  they  were  not  in 
ession,  but  with  Mr.  Snively,  who  is  the  clerk  of  the  board  of  par- 
ons,  and  some  other  business  at  the  statehouse  that  would  occupy 
ome  little  time.  I  left  Chicago  on  the  19th,  went  to  Springfield;  1 
let  a  number  of  my  friends  there ;  I  transacted  my  business,  what  I 
ad  to  transact,  and  then  I  went  to  St.  Louis  from  there  on  the 
lorning  of  the  21st  and  took  an  early  train,  my  intention  being  to 
tay  there  two  or  three  days.  Now,  if  you  ask  me  why,  I  don’t  know 
s  I  can  make  it  clear  to  you,  if  you  have  not  been  in  the  political 
ame  yourself. 

Q.  No;  I  am  asking  you  why  you  were  in  St.  Louis? — A.  Well, 
ben,  I  am  going  to  try  to  show  you,  but  I  say  I  don’t  know  if  I  can 
lake  you  understand. 

Senator  Frazier.  Perhaps  the  committee  has  been  sufficiently  in  it 
i  they  can  understand  you. 

The  Witness.  I  beg  your  pardon,  Senator,  if  I  overstep  the  bounds. 
Senator  Frazier.  That  is  all  right;  detail  it  to  us,  and  we  will  try 
i  comprehend  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  the  best  you  can. — A.  Beg  your  pardon, 
-enator.  Now,  these  men  I  had  sent  those  notifications  to,  caused 
lem  to  be  sent  to,  were  all  men  that  had  been  with  me,  stood  by  me 
irough  this  session  of  1909,  which,  by  the  way,  was  an  extraordinary 
ne,  a  very  stormy  one  for  all  of  us,  and  I  intended  to  be  a  candidate 
ir  the  legislature  again;  I  intended  to  run  for  the  minority  leader- 
lip  again  if  permitted.  I  intended  to  say  in  the  political"  game  if 
ermitted.  Furthermore,  there  was  coming  up  almost  immediately 
le  question  of  the  distribution  in  Illinois  of  minority  patronage  from 
le  governor.  Where  the  governor  stood,  whether  with  our  crowd 
v  so-called  Sullivan  crowd,  was  a  mooted  question  and  was  very 
ifficult  to  determine.  I  discussed  the  matter  with  my  friends  in 
hicago  and  discussed  it  with  some  of  my  friends  in  Springfield,  as  I 
ow  recall.  And  I  wanted  to  see  the  boys  down  there  to  see  if  any — 
along  other  things — to  talk  the  matter  over  to  see  if  there  was  any- 
ling  we  could  do  to  get  into  the  good  graces  of  Governor  Deneen 
ad  land  some,  or  at  least  a  part,  of  these  minority  appointments.  I 
fterwards  saw  Governor  Deneen  along  that  line.  Now,  that  was  my 
iject  in  going  to  St.  Louis. 

Q.  And  that  being  your  object,  Mr.  Browne,  you  picked  Mike  Link 
5  a  man  to  talk  it  over  with  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  picked  Mr.  Beckemever  as  a  man  with  whom  to  talk 
rnt  object  and  purpose  over? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mike  Link  was  one  of  the  strong  men  of  the  house,  of  your  fac- 
on,  was  he? — A.  Mike  Link  was  strong  enough  to  represent  a  dis- 
ict  of  Illinois  in  the  legislature;  Mike  Link  was  strong  enough  to 
ite  for  me  and  stand  by  me  staunchly  through  the  session.  Mr. 
eckemeyer  the  same  way.  They  were  strong  enough  to  have  been 
lie  up  to  that  time.  They  were  representatives  of  large  constitu- 


606  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


encies  in  southern  Illinois  and  entitled  to  my  consideration  and  re¬ 
spect  as  such,  and  they  formed  a  part  of  my  working  force,  the  only 
force  I  had. 

Q.  Yes ;  but  they  were  only  six  or  seven  of  the  force  you  had  of  the 
thirty,  weren’t  they?— A.  Yes,  sir.  But  in  order  to  understand  that 
matter,  you  must  recall  that  there  were  three  meeting  places  in  Illi¬ 
nois  for  members,  at  least  my  members;  that  was  St.  Louis  for  the 

southern  Illinois  Democrats -  .  . 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  said  three  places  in  Illinois. — A.  1  hat  is  what 
I  said.  Well,  I  should  have  said  in  Illinois;  St.  Louis  for  those  from 
southern  Illinois - 

Judge  Hanecy.  St.  Louis  is  not  in  Illinois. 

Mr.  Austrian.  We  know  what  you  mean ;  go  ahead,  Mr.  Browne. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  all  know,  but  then  he  was  using  a  word  that 
would  go  in  the  record  here. 

A.  Well,  there  were  three  places,  then,  that  we  used  or  picked  upon 
habitually  by  the  Democrats  for  meeting  places;  that  is,  the  Illinois 
Democrats,  those  from  southern  Illinois  at  St.  Louis;  those  from 
central  Illinois  at  Springfield;  those  from  northern  Illinois  at  Chi¬ 
cago.  Now,  outside  of  Charles  A.  White  and  Joseph  Clark,  the  men 
I  met  at  St.  Louis  that  day  were  the  only  ones  of  my  followers  in 


southern  Illinois.  .  . 

Q.  And  you  met  all  those  southern  Illinois  fellows  at  St.  Louis  on 

that  day,  is  that  right,  by  appointment  ? — A.  I  met  the  four  that  I 

have  told  you  of.  n  .  __  m  i  i 

Q.  What  four,  I  thought  you  mentioned  five?— A.  No;  Shephard, 

Link,  Beckemeyer,  Luke.  White  was  not  there,  Clark  was  not  there. 
Q.  Where  did  you  meet  Mr.  Clark?— A.  I  did  not  meet  Mr.  Clark. 
Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No;  oh,  what  did  you  mean,  at  no  time? 

Q.  No  time  around  the  21st  day  of  June? — A.  No. 

Q.  Then  you  overlooked  Clark,  eh? — A.  How  do  you  mean. 

Q.  I  mean  you  had  not  conferred  with  that  member  of  your  south¬ 
ern  constituency  ?— A.  Oh,  I  am  satisfied,  although  I  have  no  inde¬ 
pendent  recollection  of  it,  Mr.  Austrian,  I  am  satisfied  that  Mr.  Clark 
and  Mr.  White  both  received  a  notification  of  that  meeting  m  some 
way,  but  they  were  not  there. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  what  did  you  talk  over  with  Mr.  Link,  Mr. 
Luke,  Mr.  Beckemeyer,  and  Mr.  Shephard,  when  you  met  them  at  the 
Southern  Hotel  by  appointment? — A.  Well,  I  have  told  you  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  my  going -  .  n  .  _TT  __  T  ,  . 

Q.  I  am  asking  }7ou  for  the  conversation  ? — A.  Well,  I  can  not  give 


it  to  you. 

Q.  You  can  not?— A.  No,  sir.  .  __  _  .  .  . ,  , 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  what  you  told  to  Mr.  Link,  or  Mr.  Link  said  tc 


you? — A.  No.  ,  -» «-  -p)  i 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  what  you  said  to  Mr.  Beckemeyer  or  Mr.  Becke¬ 
meyer  said  to  you? — A.  No. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  anything  you  said  to  any  one  of  these  men  oi 
any  one  of  these  men  said  to  you  at  that  conference  that  you  had  witi 
them  in  the  Southern  Hotel,  at  St.  Louis,  on  the  21st  day  of  June.-- 
A.  You  ask  me  if  I  can  detail  any  specific  conversations  there,  m  sub 
stance  or  in  words,  I  say  no;  if  you  ask  me  what  we  talked  about, . 


can  tell  vou. 

Q.  Well,  tell  us?— A. 


I  have;  just  what  I  went  there  to  talk  about 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  607 

Q.  And  nothing  else? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Anything  else? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  tell  us  the  rest? — A.  Why,  I  remember  we  discussed — 
like  Link  and  I  discussed  the  question  of  pacing  horses  for  one 
ling  and  stock,  and  I  remember  that  I  had  the  intention  when  I 
ent  down  there  of  staying  a  couple  of  days.  I  had  never  been  in 
t.  Louis  but  twice  in  my  life,  and  I  was  prepared  to  stay  a  couple 
f  days  there  and  visit  in  the  town  if  any  of  them  would  have  stayed 
nd  been  a  companion,  or  all  of  them ;  but  none  evinced  any  disposi- 
on,  either  business  matters  or  something  else  prevented,  and  I  left 
lat  night. 

Q.  How  long  was  this  meeting  with  Mr.  Link  that  you  have  just 
etailed  in  your  room  at  the  Southern  Hotel? — A.  Oh,  I  can  not  tell 
ou ;  they  were  in  and  out.  We  were  there  around,  all  of  us  together, 
;veral  hours,  I  presume. 

Q.  How  long  was  Mr.  Shephard  in  your  room? — A.  I  can  not  tell 
ou  that. 

Q.  How  long  was  Shephard  in  your  room  ? — A.  I  can  not  tell  you 
lat,  but  it  seems  to  me — it  seems  to  me  that  Shephard  was  the  last 
tan  I  sawT  with  me;  I  can  not  tell  you  that. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  of  the  time  Shephard  spent  with 
ou?— A.  Oh,  no;  there  was  nothing  that  would  fix  that  in  a  man’s 
lind  in  a  multitude  of  events. 

Q.  If  Shephard  said  he  was  with  you  five  or  ten  minutes,  would 
ou  say  his  statement  was  correct?— A.  I  would  say  Shephard  was 
istaken. 

Q.  You  would  say  he  was  there  much  longer? — A.  Now,  I  think 
le  first  person  I  saw  that  day  was  Shephard ;  that  is  my  recollection, 
think  Beckemeyer  came  to  the  room  while  Shephard  was  there, 
ad  I  think  Beckemeyer  left  while  Shephard  was  there.  Now,  this 
to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  and  it  may  be  entirelv  wrong*,  but 
lat  is  my  recollection,  and  I  would  say  that  Shephard  was  there  con- 
derably  longer  than  five  or  ten  minutes. 

Q.  And  Beckemeyer  left  while  Shephard  was  there;  is  that  your 
^collection? — A.  That  is  the  way  it  seems  to  me. 

Q.  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  don’t  you  know  that  Joe  Clark  was 
lere  and  had  his  feet  cocked  up  on  the  radiator  in  your  room  while 
eckemeyer  was  in  the  room? — A.  No. 

Q.  No  recollection  of  Joe  Clark  being  in  the  room  at  all? — A.  Not 

lat  day. 

Q.  Not  that  day? — A.  No. 

Q.  Well,  any  other  day,  on  or  about  the  21st  of  June,  in  the  St, 
icholas — I  mean  the  Southern  Hotel? — A.  No;  nor  in  the  month 
l  J une. 

Q.  Nor  in  the  month  of  June.  Nor  in  the  month  of  July? — A.  If 
3  was,  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  how  long  would  you  say  that  Mr.  Luke  ivas  in 
aur  room? — A.  Oh,  I  can  not  tell  you  now.  Charley  Luke  was 
i  and  out.  I  think  Charley  Luke,  probably  from  the  time  I  first 
w  him  until  he  disappeared  finally,  I  did  not  see  him  again,  I  pre- 
ime,  perhaps  about  three  hours. 

Q.  Between  the  times  you  saw  him,  or  do  you  mean  to  tell  us  he 
as  in  the  room? — A.  From  the  time  I  saw  him  until  the  last  I  saw 

m. 


608  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  I  want  to  know  how  long  he  was  in  the  room? — A.  I  can  not 
tell  you  that. 

Q.  You  can  not? — A.  I  say  he  was  in  and  out. 

Q.  Was  Charley  Luke  in  a  sober  condition  that  day? — A.  Yes: 
Charley  Luke  was  sober.  I  won’t  say  that  Charley  Luke  was  not 
taking  a  drink  occasionally,  although  I  do  not  know  whether  he  wa:- 
or  not,  but  Charley  Luke  was  sober. 

Q.  Wasn’t  he  rather  boisterous  that  day,  Mr.  Browne? — A.  No. 

Q.  Very  quiet,  was  he? — A.  Oh,  no;  Charley  was  never  quiet 
Charley  was'a  sociable,  brilliant  young  fellow. 

Q.  Don’t  you  remember  Beckemeyer — one  of  the  reasons  Becke 
meyer  gave  you  for  leaving  your  room  that  day  was  because  Charle} 
Luke,  as  he  was  referred  to,  was  drinking  a  good  deal,  and  Becke 
meyer  said — Beckemeyer  left  on  that  account? — A.  Oh,  no;  oh,  no 

0.  Well,  Browne  would  not  leave  either?— A.  Well,  Browne  wa: 
not  drinking. 

Q.  Well,  Browne  would  not  leave  on  that  account  ? — A.  W  hy,  . 
am  not  in  the  habit  of  leaving  when  I  am  host. 

Q.  You  were  host  that  day?— A.  Why,  apparently. 

Q.  Well,  you  know,  not  apparently  ? — A.  Well,  I  think  I  was. 

Q.  Now,  if  Beckemeyer  says  you  gave  him  $1,000  on  that  day,  i 

that  correct  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Beckemever  lies,  does  he? — A.  Oh,  I  do  not  say  that. 

Q.  Well,  if  he  says  that,  and  you  say - A.  No;  I  do  not  thml 

Beckemeyer  lies.  When  a  man  has  made  that  statement,  Mr.  Aus 
trian.  after  having  been  put  through  what  he  was,  I  do  not  conside 
that  he  lied;  and  when  he  has  to  stick  to  it  thereafter,  or  be  sub 
jected  to  the  pains  and  penalties  of  perjury,  I  have  got  a  little  charit; 
for  him. 

Q.  You  have? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  pay  Beckemeyer  the  $1,000  or  didn  t  you? — A. 
said  no. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit  that  he  says  he  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  pay  Link  any  money  that  day?— A.  Nc 

sir, 

Q.  Then  if  Link  says  you  paid  him  a  thousand  dollars  he  lies  ?- 

Q.  He  does  not  lie.  either? — A.  I  don’t  know  but  what  if  I  had  t 
go  through  what  Michael  Link  went  through  in  the  office  of  the  State 
attorney,  working  under  your  instructions  and  directions,  and  th 
paper  vou  represent,  I  do  not  know  but  what  if  it  had  been  absolute 
false  I  would  have  fallen  for  it  myself,  and  would  have  been  willin 
to  do  most  anything  in  order  to  get  to  my  home  and  family,  if  I  ha 

0I1Q.  Mr.  Browne,  that  speech  that  you  have  just  made - A.  Tha 

is  not  n  spo^cli* 

Q.  You  have  made  under  oath,  haven’t  you?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman - 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  has  one  counsel  to  represent  him. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  any  instriK 
tion  or  direction  ever  made  by  me  to  any  public  official  in  the  count 
of  Cook  at  any  time?— A.  I  know  it  came  out  during  the  trial  of  m 
cases  that  you  were  the  attorney  for  the  Tribune  Company,  and  tha 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  609 

ou  drew  up  the  Tribune  contract.  Whether  or  not  that  is  correct  I 

o  not  know. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  know  of  }mur  own  knowledge  or  have  you  ever 
eard  that  I  participated  in  any  degree  other  than  the  drawing  of 
le  contract  in  question  ? — A.  Yes ;  I  have  heard  so. 

Q.  From  your  lawyers,  eh? — A.  Oh,  no. 

Q.  Well,  from  whom? — A.  Why,  it  has  been  a  matter  of  general 
imment  all  over  Chicago. 

Q,  Mr.  Browne,  you  have  put  people  through  the  same  ordeal 
ourself,  haven’t  you,  that  you  have  referred  to,  as  Link  and  Becke- 
leyer  have  been  put  through? — A.  Not  only  I  have  not,  Mr.  Aus- 
•ian,  but  I  do  not  think  a  parallel  case  exists  in  the  history  of  the 
tate  of  Illinois. 

Q.  You  have  browbeaten  law}^ers  who  have  tried  cases  against 
3U  for  years,  haven’t  you,  or  endeavored  to,  sir? — A.  Not  to  my 

nowledge. 

Q.  You  have  often  gone  so  far  as  to  browbeat  lawyers  that  they 
ave  shot  at  you  down  in  your  home  town,  haven’t  they? — A.  Not  to 
iy  knowledge. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  Mr.  Conway  protected  himself  against  your  on- 
aught  with  a  revolver,  didn’t  he? — A.  Never. 

Q.  And  he  never  shot  at  you? — A.  Never. 

Q.  And  never  had  any - A.  The  only  shooting  or  altercation 

lat  he  ever  engaged  in  in  his  life  was  when  a  man  who  was  properly 
itraged  started  for  him  with  a  revolver,  and  the  man  did  not  get  his 
wolver  as  quick  as  Conway  got  up  the  alley. 

Q.  And  you  were  not  a  party  to  that  transaction? — A.  I  do  not 
now  whether  I  was. 

Q.  And  Conway  never  did  shoot  at  you? — A.  Never  in  the  world. 
Q.  Or  engage  in  any  altercation  with  you? — A.  No — oh,  alter  - 

ition  ? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  do  not  know  a  man  in  Ottawa  he  has  not  had  an 
tercation  with. 

Q.  And  you  are  included? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  are  known  as  one  of  the  bad  men  of  Ottawa, 
•en’t  you? — A.  Why,  the  vote  at  the  primaries  doesn’t  show  it. 

Q.  How  much  money  did  the  votes  at  the  primaries  cost  you? 
Senator  Burrows.  Wait  a  minute. 

A.  I  would  be  willing  to  answer. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  think  that  is  proper? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not ;  I  do  not  think  that  is  proper,  neither  do 
think  the  remark  of  the  witness  is  proper. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  proceed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Browne,  you  know  that  Link  and  Beckemeyer 
stifled  that  it  was  only  after  they  had  been  indicted  for  perjury 
iat  they  told  the  truth  in  reference  to  the  transactions  they  had 
ith  you,  you  know  that? — A.  No;  I  don’t  know  that. 

Q.  You  have  been  reading  the  transcript  of  the  proceedings  taken 
‘fore  this  committee,  have  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  been  in  attendance  here  almost  continuously  for  the 
st  four  or  five  or  six  days,  haven’t  you? — A.  I  haven’t  been  near 
iis  building  until  last  Monday. 

Q.  Well,  to-day  is  Thursday;  that  is  the  last  four  days. — A.  Mon- 
ly  afternoon. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 39 


610  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  you  have  been  constantly  in  attendance  since  then,  haven 
you? — A.  Aes;  I  have  been  constantly  in  town  most  all  of  the  time 
with  the  exception  of  running  in  and  out  of  town  upon  three  occa 
sions  since  this  inquiry  started  and  for  a  few  days  before. 

Q.  Tending  to  show  what? — A.  Tending  to  show  nothing,  just  t< 
show  my  whereabouts. 

Q,  Mr.  Browne,  did  you  know  that  Wilson  was  going  to  St 
Louis? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  advised  you  of  that  fact? — A.  He  advised  me  of  it  him 
self. 

Q.  When? — A.  Before  he  went. 

Q.  Sent  you  a  telegram? — A.  No;  I  was  in  Chicago,  as  I  told  yon 
and  had  been  for  a  week,  sick  with  ptomaine  poisoning,  at  the  Brigg 
House.  I  was  just  up  and  around  and  in  a  very  weak  condition. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  think  I  went  home  that  night.  I  am  not  sure  a 
to  that. 

Q.  Yes.  Now,  you  have  been  intending  to  go — you  had  intendet 
to  go  to  St.  Louis  with  Wilson? — A.  No;  I  did  not  intend  to  do  any 
thing  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Did  you  expect  to  go  to  St.  Louis? — A.  No;  I  did  not  kno\ 
that  he  was  going  to  St.  Louis  until  practically  the  time  that  he  went 

Q.  Well,  he  went  on  the  16th  or  17th  of  July,  didn’t  he? — A. 
can  not  give  you  the  exact  date. 

Q.  You  have  no  remembrance  of  the  time?— A.  I  know  it  was  it 
there  somewhere. 

Q.  Well,  let  me  understand  you.  When  did  you  reach  Chicago  ?- 
A.  When? 

Q.  In  July? — A.  In  July. 

Q.  Y  es. — A.  Well,  now,  I  would  have  to  think.  I  am  not  sur 
whether  I  went  back  to  Chicago  on  the  night  of  the  14th — back  t 
Ottawa  from  Chicago  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  July  or  the  151 
of  July,  I  can  not  tell  you. 

Q.  l)o  you  know  when  Wilson  left  Chicago  for  St.  Louis? — A.  N( 
My  knowledge  of  the  testimony  on  the  two  trials  of  my  case  wouL 
indicate  to  me  that  he  went  down  there,  I  think,  on  the  14th. 

Q.  The  14th  of  July? — A.  I  would  think  so. 

Q.  And  you  left  Chicago  when  for  Ottawa? — A.  Well,  I  do  nc 
know  whether  it  was  on  the  day  he  left  for  St.  Louis  or  the  next  da} 

Q.  Either  the  day  he  left  for  St.  Louis  or  the  day  after? — A. 
think  so. 

Q.  Well,  when  you  saw  Wilson,  did  you  leave — when  did  you  se 
Wilson  before  he  left? — A.  Well,  my  recollection  is  that  I  saw  hir 
that  day  that  he  left. 

Q.  And  you  knew  he  was  going  to  St.  Louis? — A.  I  knew  it 
short  time  before  he  went  that  he  was  going. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean,  “  a  short  time,”  the  same  day,  or  “  a  shoi 
time,”  a  few  days  before? — A.  No,  no,  no;  my  recollection,  my  be< 
recollection  is  that  I  did  not  know  it  until  that  day. 

Q.  That  day? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  and  he  discuss  it? — A.  No;  I  have  tried  to  refresh  m 
recollection  as  to  whether  I  knew  the  purpose  of  his  going  to  S 
Louis  before  he  went,  oi  whether  he  told  me  after  he  came  back, 
can  not  be  sure  about  it. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  61 J 

Q.  lou  don’t  know  whether  he  disclosed  why  he  went  before  he 
\Tent  or  not? — A.  I  knewT  he  was  going  down  there  to  see  the  south- 
rn  Illinois  members,  I  knew  he  was  going  down  there  to  see  the 
outhern  Illinois  members,  but  whether  or  not  he  disclosed  to  me 
>efore  he  went  his  exact  purpose,  or  whether  he  did  that  after  he 
eturned,  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  Do  you  know  wdiom  he  was  going  to  see  there? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Who  ? — A.  The  southern  Illinois  members. 

Q.  The  same  ones  you  mentioned  before? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Including  White  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  Clark? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  ones  you  have  mentioned? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  know  what  his  purpose  was  in  going  there? — A.  I 
:now  what  he  told  me. 

Q.  And  what  did  he  tell  you  ? — A.  He  told  me — now,  in  order  to 
aake  it  clear  to  you,  Doctor  Allison  had  spoken  to  him,  and  I  guess  to 
ne  or  two  others  about  the  advisability  of  giving  me  a  banquet. 
now,  I  am  trying  to  tell  you  just  how  I  am  concerned.  I  am  serious 
bout  it,  Mr.  Austrian,  of  giving  me  a  banquet  there  in  Ottawa  or 
liieago,  one  place  or  the  other,  and  only  giving  invitations  to  the 
)emocratic  members  that  belonged  to  my  crowd.  I  had  frowned 
pon  that  proposition,  upon  the  theory  tliat  it  still  further  divided 
be  two  factions  of  the  Democrats,  and  still  more,  prevented  any 
malgamation  of  them  in  the  future.  I  told  him  I  did  not  want 
ny thing  of  the  kind  done.  He  took  the  matter  in  hand  himself, 
le  told  me  there  before  he  went,  or  after  he  went,  that  his  purpose 
i  going  to  St.  Louis  was  to  see  these  men  and  discuss  the  matter  with 
lem. 

Q.  I  he  banquet? — A.  Yes;  nowT,  that  is  what  he  told  me,  and  he 
)ld  me  that  he  had  talked  it  over;  he  told  me  they  had  left  it  with 
im  to  do  as  he  and  the  fellows  in  the  north  end’ of  the  State  saw 
est. 

Q.  Now ,  Mr.  Browne,  if  Mr.  Wilson  was  going  to  St.  Louis  to  talk 
ver  the  question  of  giving  a  banquet  for  you,  why  should  you  be 
resent  at  the  time  that  matter  was  discussed  ? — A.  There  would  be 
o  reason  in  that  that  would  warrant  my  being  there;  on  the  con- 
ary,  modesty  would  suggest  that  I  would  not  be  there;  but  as  I 
splained  to  you  a  little  while  ago,  the  object  of  my  visit  down  there 
lth  them  in  June,  his  going  down,  my  being  at  Chicago  at  the  time, 
would  have  gone  down  with  him  wee'll  enough,  in  order  to  see  them 
st  in  touch  with  the  men. 

Q.  You  just  saw  them  less  than  three  weeks  before?— A.  That  is 
ery  true. 

Q.  You  had  seen  them  on  the  21st  of  June? — A.  I  used  to  see  the 
ivs  up  in  Chicago  every  week,  every  twro  weeks. 

Q.  ^  ou  used  to  come  to  Chicago  every  week  or  two? — A.  Not  al- 
ays;  sometimes  I  did,  sometimes  a  month,  sometimes  a  w^eek,  maybe 
7erv  week  for  several  weeks. 

Q.  But  Chicago  was  the  place  where  you  made  your  headquarters 
asn’t  it?— A.  No,  no,  no. 

Q.  lou  had  never  been  to  St.  Louis  before  you  went  there  on  the 
ist  of  June,  1900,  had  you? — A.  Oh,  yes;  oh,  yes. 

Q.  How  often? — A.  1  had  never  been  there  in  the  neighborhood 
the  session  of  1909,  of  that  year,  rather,  I  had  never — well,  it  was 


612  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOR1MER. 


not  that  year;  I  was  there  a  little  bit  before  the  session  of  190S 
opened. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  only  time,  isn’t  it?— A.  It  was  the  only  time 
for  a  considerable  period  of  time. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  had  only  been  in  St.  Louie 

once  or  twice? — A.  Twice. 

Q.  In  your  life? — A.  Twice  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Prior  to  the  21st  of  June,  1909?— A.  Twice  to  my  recollection 
unless  just  before  the  session  opened. 

Q.  In  December  or  November,  1908?— A.  Yes.  And  once  after  ] 
became  a  member  of  the  legislature,  but  several  years  before  when  ai 
investigating  committee  went  down  there. 

Q.  Three  or  four  years  ago,  those  are  the  only  two  times? — A.  Yes 
I  may  have  been  there,  but  those  are  the  only  two. 

Q.  Now,  you  have  been  with  these  gentlemen,  Shephard,  Link 
Clark,  Luke,  and  all  the  fellows  you  mentioned,  and  Wilson,  con 
tinuously,  from  the  4th  day  of  January — when  I  say  continuously,  1 
mean  every  day  up  to  the  5th  day  of  June? — A.  The  4th  day. 

Q.  The  4th 'day  of  June,  1909?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  you  saw  them  on  the  21st  day  of  June  for  the  pur 

pose - A.  Yes. 

Q.  For  the  purpose  of  talking  politics  in  the  Southern  Hotel  ?- 


Q.  And  you  would  have  gone  there  again  on  the  15th  day  of  July 

would  you?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  the  same  reason? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  a  busy,  practicing  lawyer  down  m  the  centra 
part*  of  Illinois,  weren’t  you?— A.  Well,  I  am  very  much  afraid  tha 
my  law  practice  has  not  been  helped  very  much  by  my  political  aspi 

rations  and  doings  in  the  past  ten  years.  . 

Q.  Yes;  but  you  were  a  busy  lawyer,  that  is,  a  busy  lawyer  n 
Ottawa,  Ill.,  weren’t  you?— A.  Good  for  the  country  law  practice. 
Q.  One  of  the  besL  isn’t  it,  in  Illinois?— A.  No. 

Q,  It  is  not? — A.  No. 

Q,  Now,  when  Wilson  went  down  there,  you  knew  that  he  wa 

going? — A.  I  told  you  about  that. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  That  is  all  I  want  you  to  say,  that  you  did.  An. 
then  you  saw  Wilson  there  immediately  before  he  went,  when  he  dis 
closed  the  purpose  of  his  visit,  or  after  he  came  back,  when  he  dis 
closed  the  purpose  of  his  visit,  is  that  correct?— A.  He  either  dis 
closed  it  before  he  went  or  after  he  came  back  before  I  knew  ot  it. 
Q,  And  you  say  that  the  only  purpose  of  his  visit  was  the  giving  o 

the  banquet  to  you? — A.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Q.  What  other  purpose  did  he  have?— A.  I  cion  t  know. 

Q.  The  only  purpose  that  he  disclosed  to  you?— A.  les,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  why  did  you  write  to  White  on  the  16th  day  of  Jnl 
that  you  were  awfully  sorry  that  you  were  unable  to  be  with  hu 
yesterday  forenoon  in  St.  Louis? — A.  Because  it  was  true. 

Q.  You  were  sorry  to  be  with  White;  is  that  right.  A.  Yes,  sn 
Q.  Even  though  the  only  purpose  of  the  visit,  so  far  as  you  knev 
on  the  16th  day  of  July,  when  you  wrote  that  tetter,  was  the  la. 
that  they  were  discussing  the  banquet  for  you?  A.  lhat  was  nc 
the  purpose  I  would  have  seen  White  for. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  613 

Q.  What  would  you  see  White  for? — A.  The  same  thing  I  went 
own  there  before,  simply  a  political  gathering  with  my  adherents. 
Q,  That  is  all.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  if  these  gentlemen  saw  Mr. 
Wilson,  did  you  meet  them  after  the  meeting  at  St.  Louis — that  is, 
hephard,  or  Clark,  or  Link,  or  Luke  ? — A.  I  saw  Wilson  every  once 
i  awhile. 

Q.  Not  Wilson;  I  say  Shephard  or  Clark.  Did  you  meet  Shep¬ 
ard  after  he  met  Wilson  in  St.  Louis,  on  the  16th  day  of  July? — A. 
et  me  see' if  I  understand.  Did  I  meet  Shephard  in  St.  Louis? 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Shephard  after  his  visit  with  Wilson? — A.  Now, 
t  me  see.  Oh,  yes ;  I  have  met  Shephard  since  that  time  frequently. 
Q.  You  met  him  at  the  special  session,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  met  him 
t  the  special  session;  yes,  and  I  met  him  down  at  St.  Louis  at  the 
'emocratic  convention  on  the  19th  of  this — the  19th  of  September; 
think  it  was  the  19th. 

Q.  And  you  met  the  other  various  members  who  met  Wilson  in 
t.  Louis,  didn’t  you  ? — A.  I  have  met  them  all  since ;  yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  discuss  with  any  of  them  their  visit  with  Wilson 
i  St.  Louis? — A.  I  have  no  independent  recollection  of  having 
one  so. 

Q.  Your  recollection  is  that  you  never  discussed  with  them? — A. 
o ;  it  is  not.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection;  did  you  or  did  you  not  discuss 
? — A.  1  have  no  recollection  on  it. 

Q.  White  never  told  you  that  Wilson  gave  him  any  money  down 
i  St.  Louis? — A.  White  never  told  me? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  WLite  never  told  me  that  anybody  gave  him  any 
toney. 

Q.  Did  Wliite  discuss  with  you  his  visit  in  St.  Louis  in  July? — 
..  No. 

Q.  It  was  after  that  visit  in  July  with  Wilson  that  you  and  Write 
iade  some  trips  across  the  lake,  wasn’t  it? — A.  No,  Mr.  Austrian; 
lat  it  not  putting  it  correctly. 

Q.  Well,  when  did  you  make  the  trip  ? — A.  You  are  right  as  to  the 
ate.  Mr.  White  was  notified  to  go  along  with  myself  and  a  friend 
f  mine,  upon  the  lake.  I  did  not  go  with  White ;  Mr.  White  went 
ith  myself  and  the  friend  of  mine  on  the  lake. 

Q.  Well,  now,  then,  put  the  question  again.  It  was  after  White’s 
isit  to  St.  Louis? — A.  You  mean  Wilson’s. 

Q.  No,  no;  White’s  visit  to  Wilson  at  St.  Louis  that  you  and  White 
iade  trips  across  the  lake;  is  that  correct? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  what  did  you  mean  when  you  said  to  White 
i  your  letter  to  him  of  the  16th  day  of  July,  1909,  that  you  hoped  he 
fairly  prosperous?  Hadn’t  he  been  prosperous  prior  to  that 
me? — A.  No. 

Q.  He  had  not  been? — A.  No. 

Q.  He  had  been  just  the  opposite,  hadn’t  he? — A.  No;  White  had 
eplored  the  fact  that  he  was  going  back  to  St.  Louis  without  a  job, 
ad  we  had  discussed  in  a  general  way — first,  I  told  him  I  had  writ- 
•n  to  the  street-car  people  for  him;  my  recollection  is  that  I  told 
im  I  would  do  what  I  could  toward  securing  him  a  job,  toward 
elping  him,  and  just  as  soon  as  I  could  I  did  it;  tried  to  get  him  a 
)b,  and  that  was  my  effort  from  the  time  the  session  closed — to  try 
ad  do  something  to  help  him. 


614  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Yes;  but  I  am  not  asking  you  that,  Mr.  Browne.  Did  you  evei 
write  a  letter  for  Mr*.  White  inquiring  with  reference  to  a  position  oi 
otherwise  after  the  15th  day  of  June,  1909? — A.  Sure. 

Q.  When  ? — A.  I  went  to  Chicago,  or  came  to  Chicago  rather,  an( 
I  think  I  saw  Senator  Lorimer  upon  two  different  occasions,  and 
saw  Mr.  Monaghan  upon  one  occasion.  I  saw  some  other  friends  o 
mine,  and  I  met  several  friends  to  secure  a  job  for  Mr.  White,  ant 
finally  succeeded  in  getting  him  the  one  you  know  of. 

Q.  The  one  embodied  in  the  correspondence  introduced  in  evi 
dence? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  am  talking  about  the  street-railway  company.  Did  you  inter 
cede,  as  you  put  it,  for  White  with  the  street-car  company? — A.  Yes 
sir. 

Q.  That  was  all  prior  to  the  15th  day  of  July,  wasn’t  it? — A.  Yes 
sir. 

Q.  And  up  to  that  time,  so  far  as  you  know,  White  was  not  onb 
not  prosperous,  but  just  the  opposite? — A.  Xo;  I  don't  know  any 
thing  of  the  kind. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  an}- thing  about  it? — A.  Xo;  I  don't  knov 
that. 

Q.  He  had  borrowed  money  from  you,  had  he  not? — A.  Xo. 

Q.  Xone  whatever? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Up  to  the  15th  day  of  July? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Had  be  asked  for  money? — A.  Xo. 

Q.  At  any  time? — A.  Xot  of  me. 

Q.  Xot  of  you? — A.  Wait  a  minute.  Up  to  the  15th  day  of  July 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Yes. 

Q.  He  had  borrowed  money? — A.  Once. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Once. 

Q.  And  he  had  never  paid  it  back,  had  he? — A.  Yes;  my  recollec 
tion  is  that  Mr.  White  handed  that  back  to  me  at  another  time  tha 
we  were  at  the  Briggs  House  at  the  same  time,  in  the  month  of  July 
that  is  my  impression  that  he  paid  it  back  to  me. 

Q.  He  paid  it  back? — A.  I  think  he  did. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  but  y7ou  had  seen  him  only  once  since  the  legisla 
ture  adjourned  up  to  the  15th  day  of  July,  had  you  not? — A.  Xow 
let  me  see.  I  onlv  saw  him  before  the  month  of  July,  in  the  tim 
intervening — well,  the  15th  of  June,  16th  and  17th  of  June.  Xow,  . 
can  tell  you  if  you  will  iet  me  refer  to  some  memoranda  when  the  nex 
time  was  that  I  saw  him. 

Q.  Certainly. — A.  (Witness  refers  to  memoranda.)  This  is  merel; 
a  transcript  of  the  Briggs  House  transfer  book. 

Q.  Just  look  at  it,  and  just  give  me  an  answer  without  reading.- 
A.  I  am  going  to  do  that.  I  was  in  Chicago  again,  from  the — be 
tween  the  10th  and  27th  day  of  July,  and  I  saw — and  Mr.  White  wa 
there  between  the  22d  and  27th — and  I  saw  him  during  that  time 
My  recollection  is  that  is  when  he  paid  that  money  to  me. 

Q.  That  is,  after  the  meeting  at  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  After  the  Wilson  meeting  at  St.  Louis? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  he  had  asked  you  to  get  him  a  job,  hadn’t  he? — A.  Tha 
matter  had  been  impressed  upon  me  constantly. 

Q.  And  from  his  talks  with  you,  prior  to  the  15th  day  of  July 
whenever  they  occurred,  you  assumed  that  he  was  not  prosperous 
didn’t  you? — A.  Well,  I  assumed  that  he  had  no  property,  and  . 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  615 

sumed  that  he  had  no  steady  job,  and  I  did  not  consider  him 
'osperous. 

Q.  Why,  when  he  left  you  on  the  16th  or  17th  of  June,  1909,  to 
,)  back  to  O’Fallon  or  East  St.  Louis,  he  borrowed  $25  from  you, 
dn’t  he  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q,  And  up  to  the  15th  day  of  July  he  had  not  repaid  it,  had  he? — 
.  No;  because  I  had  not  seen  him. 

Q.  Well,  he  had  not  repaid  it,  as  a  matter  of  fact? — A.  No. 

Q.  Never  mind  the  reason  why;  he  never  offered  to  repay  it? — A. 
"hen  he  borrowed  that  $25  from  me,  Mr.  Austrian,  in  June,  when 
;  borrowed  that  $25  from  me,  he  did  not  say  to  me  at  that  time, 
id  he  had  not  informed  me  that  he  was  out  of  funds  or  that  he  did 
>t  have  funds  at  home;  he  rather  impressed  me  with  what  he  said, 
ith  the  idea  that  he  was  short  of  ready  cash  there  and  did  not  want 
borrow  at  the  hotel  desk,  although  he  did  not  say  much.  '  I  know 
struck  me  as  a  mere  temporary  loan. 

Q.  Then  you  thought  he  was  a  man  that  had  money  at  home? — A. 
thought - 

Q.  All  he  had  to  do  was  to  go  down  home  and  get  it? — A.  No;  I 
ought  this :  White  was  a  man  without  any  family,  and  without  any 
sponsibility,  as  I  knew.  He  was  a  man  that  had  not  been  used  to 
uch  money,  he  had  been  a  laborer  on  the  street  cars;  and  he  had 
itten  a  salary,  postage,  etc.,  amounting  to  practically  $2,050,  more 
an  that,  a  little  more  than  that,  about  $2,100,  from  the  time  the 
ssion  opened  until  it  closed.  I  do  not  know  how  much  he  had  left 
•  ’  it,  or  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Don't  you  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  you  yourself  investi- 
ited  and  knew  that  White  had  drawn  all  the  money  coming  to  him 
Januarv  or  Februarv,  1909,  for  the  fortv-sixth  session? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  had  not  seen  to  that — you  don’t  know? — A.  I  would  like 
answer  your  question,  if  you  would  let  me.  At  the  time  you  speak 
’,  when  he  borrowed  this  money  of  me,  and  up  to  the  time  he  com- 
enced  writing  me  letters,  asking  me  for  financial  assistance,  I  didn’t 
low  anything  about  White’s  financial  condition;  I  had  a  good  meas- 
■e  from  the  facts  I  have  stated  to  you. 

Q.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Browne - A.  Since  that  time  and  after  my 

ials,  it  may  have  been  that  investigations  wTere  made,  not  by  me,  blit 
my  interest,  that  have  disclosed  things  to  me  that  I  did  not  know 
ifore. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  that  he  drew  his  $2,050  in  January  and  Feb- 
lary,  1909? — A.  Well,  they  all  do  that. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you,  “  Don’t  you  know  whether  he  did  ?  ” — A.  It  is 
legislative  practice  to  draw  your  money  there,  but  it  is  not  a  legis- 
tive  practice  with  everybody  to  spend  it  all  at  once. 

Q.  Is  it  a  legislative  practice  to  put  a  man  on  the  pay  rolls  of  the 
:ate  of  Illinois  without  their  doing  any  labor  or  service  for  the 
ate? — A.  Mr.  Chairman,  is  there  any  desire  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
ittee  that  I  answer  that  question? 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  does  not  see  how  it  is  material. 
Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  in  evidence  here.  Judge  Hanecy  inquired 
id  examined  Mr.  White  for  an  hour  upon  the  putting  of  Sidney 
arborough  upon  the  pay  roll  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  as  a  janitor, 
ithout  the  performance  of  any  services.  One  hour  he  examined 
r.  White  on  it. 


616  INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  was  simply  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
close  relations  between  Yarborough  and  White,  and  that  only  for  the 
purpose  of  showing - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  don’t  care  what  the  purpose  was;  that  was  the 
evidence.  I  don’t  know  what  was  in  counsel’s  mind. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  was  entirely  collateral. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  know  what  was  in  counsel’s  mind. 

The  Witness.  I  have  no  disposition  here  to  conceal  a  single  thine 
I  have  done,  but  I  do  not  want  to  charge  to  the  State  of  Illinois,  noi 
to  the  legislators  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  something  that  I  do  not 
know  about  specifically  myself. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then,  if  you  don’t  know  about  it,  all  you  have  tc 
do  is  to  say  so. — A.  I  know  this,  I  never  have  seen  anybody  perforn 
any  very  arduous  physical  labor  at  Springfield,  in  the  statehouse  01 
outside. 

Q.  And  you  never  protested  by  reason  of  that  fact  ? 

Senator  Frazier.  Either  Republican  or  Democrat,  that  is;  then 
are  no  lines  to  be  drawn. — A.  I  do  not  think  party  lines  have  beer 
drawn  on  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  Mr.  Browne,  did  you  give  Mr.  White,  in  the 
city  of  Springfield,  during  the  session  of  the  Illinois  legislature,  the 
forty-sixth,  any  money  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  What  was  that  question? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  it. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  Absolutely  no. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  At  no  time. 

Q.  You  never  gave  him  a  $100  bill? — A.  No;  nor  a  50,  nor  a  20 
nor  a  5,  nor  a  10. 

Q.  And  if  he  had  asked  you  for  it,  you  would  not  have  given  it  t< 
him? — A.  Yes,  I  think  I  would.  I  do  not  think  I  would  have  givei 
him  100,  Mr.  Austrian,  because  they  are  not  common  with  me. 

Q.  One  hundred  dollar  bills  are  not  common  with  you? — A.  On 
hundred  dollar  bills  are  not  common  with  me. 

Q.  And  they  were  not  during  the  forty-sixth - A.  Not  with  me 

Q.  General  assembly.  I  am  asking  with  you,  with  reference  to  yon 
I  assume  there  are  banks  down  there  that  had  $100  bills? — A.  Thai 
may  be  a  violent  assumption ;  you  can  not  tell. 

Q.  After  the  meetings  at  St.  Louis,  Mr.  Browne,  that  you  couk 
not  attend,  that  you  were  very  anxious  to  attend,  the  one  in  July 
did  you  ever  call  the  southern  Illinois  members  at  St.  Louis  togethei 
thereafter? — A.  In  St.  Louis? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  No,  sir;  not  in  St.  Louis. 

Q.  And  this  idea  you  had  of  again  becoming  a  candidate,  anc 
again  desiring  to  be  a  minority  leader,  that  you  say  you  had  in  youi 
mind  in  June  when  you  met  them  there,  the  only  election  you  couk; 
possibly  be  involved  in,  occurred  in  September  of  1910,  is  that  cor 
rect? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Some  fourteen,  that  was  some  fourteen  months  after  that  meet¬ 
ing? — A.  Yes.  In  order,  however,  Mr.  Austrian,  for  one  to  retail 
any  political  leadership  or  political  affiliation,  at  least,  it  has  beer 
my  experience,  it  keeps  you  busy  twenty-four  months  out  of  twe 
years. 


•INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  617 

Q.  St.  Louis  was  the  meeting  place  for  the  southern  members  of 
he  legislature,  whose  names  I  have  mentioned? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Well,  why  didn't  you  call  them  together  again  in  St.  Louis 
fter  July,  1909? — A.  I  presume  the  only  answer  I  can  give  you  is 
►ecause  no  occasion  arose  that  permitted  me  so  to  do. 

Q.  But  the  two  occasions,  and  the  only  two  occasions  that  have 
ver  arisen,  that  permitted  you  so  to  do  was  in  June  and  July  of  last 
rear,  within  three — within  two  and  four  or  five  weeks  after  the  legis- 
ature  adjourned;  is  that  correct? — A.  I  have  told  3*011  of  two  times. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  I  did  not  call  anybody  together  in  July. 

Q.  No;  but  you  said  you  would  have  been  very  glad  to  have  met 
hem  there  for  the  purpose  of  renewing  acquaintanceship  and  rees- 
ablishing  political  relations  yourself? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrl4n.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  a  quarter  to  five.  I  have  one 
>r  two  other  subjects  that  I  would  like  to  inquire  of  Mr.  Browne,  and 
ine  or  two  letters  that  I  would  like  to  show  him.  I  haven’t  them 
lere,  and  could  not  finish  with  Mr.  Browne,  anv  way. 

The  Witness.  I  would  like  at  this  time,  before  the  committee  ad- 
ourns,  if  I  may  be  pardoned  for  an  independent  suggestion.  I  feel 
lmost  as  if  I  was  somewhat  a  defendant.  In  connection  with  the 
luestion  as  to  whether  I  have  given  Michael  S.  Link  any  money,  I 
rould  like  to  show  the  committee  at  this  time  a  letter  which  I 
eceived  from  Mr.  Link,  and  which,  to  my  surprise,  has  not  gone  in 
vidence,  if  I  am  permitted. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  prefer  to  have  that  done.  I  have  that  right 
Lere,  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  on  cross-examination. 

The  Witness.  Very  well.  The  only  thing,  I  would  like  to  have  it 
;o  in  in  connection  with  this  matter. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  objection  is  there? 

Judge  Hanecy.  None  whatever.  There  is  the  envelope. 

The  Witness.  I  received  this  letter  from  Michael  S.  Link  in  the 
ondition  you  see  it,  the  envelope  with  its  inclosure,  postmarked  on 
he  12th  of  September.  Let  us  see — yes ;  the  postmark  is  of  the  12th 
>f  September. 

Senator  Gamble.  1909  or  1910? 

The  Witness.  1910.  He  dated  the  letter  on  the  12th  day  of  Sep- 
ember,  1910;  written  from  his  home  at  Mitchell,  Ill.,  on  his  legisla¬ 
te  stationery. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Will  you  read  it,  Mr.  Browne? 

The  Witness.  Just  a  moment.  Being  exhibit - 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  is  the  official  stenographer,  the  young  lady 

here. 

(Said  envelope  and  inclosure  were  thereupon  marked  “Exhibit 
-Z,  K.  F.  L.,  10/6/10.”) 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  handwriting  of  Michael  S.  Link? — 
L  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  signature  of  that? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  whose  handwriting  is  that? — A.  Michael  S.  Link.  The 
>ody  of  the  letter  is  in  type. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  now,  read  the  letter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  me  see  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Hand  it  to  Mr.  Austrian. 


618  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Senator  Borrows.  Let  Mr.  Austrian  see  it. 

(Whereupon  said  letter  was  handed  to  Mr.  Austrian.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  I  submit,  I  would  like  to  have  the  chair  see  it 
before  it  is  read  in  the  record,  and  let  the  chair  determine  whether  or 
not  it  is  competent. 

The  Witness.  I  would  like  to  suggest  to  the  committee,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man,  that  in  connection  with  the  statement  that  I  gave  Michael  Link 
$1,000,  or  any  other  sum  of  money,  that  it  is  vital. 

Senator  Burrows.  When  did  you  receive  this? — A.  On  the  date 
that  the  envelope  bears  its  date,  September  13.  I  can  not  say  that  I 
opened  it  on  the  date  of  September  13 ;  it  may  have  lain  in  my  office 
for  a  couple  of  days,  but  that  is  the  date  it  was  deposited  in  my 
office. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  date  of  the  envelope  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  September  13,  1910. 

The  Witness.  September  13,  1910.  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  you  received  it,  of  course,  after  that 
date? — A.  Oh,  yes;  oh,  yes;  but  I  can  not  say  that  I  received  it  ex¬ 
actly  on  that  day;  that  is,  that  I  opened  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  it  be  read ;  you  may  read  it. 

The  Witness.  (Beading:) 

Mitchell,  III.,  9.12. 


Hon.  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  Ottawa,  III. 


Dear  Lee:  I  want  to  congratulate  you  on  your  complete  vindication  of  the 
charge  of  bribing  one  Chas.  A.  White  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  I  don’t  believe 
you  made  any  attempt  to  bribe  anyone.  You  have  certainly  suffered  this  long 
siege  in  proving  that  some  one  sold  a  lie  to  the  Chicago  Tribune. 

May  you  be  nominated  the  15th,  and  triumphantly  elected  in  November;  the 
prayers  of  a  prominent  member  of  my  family  will  be  with  you. 


Yours,  etc., 


M.  S.  Link. 


Judge  Hanecy.  Will  you  read  the  envelope  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  When  you  said  “  9.12,”  that  is  the  12th  day  of  Sep¬ 
tember,  1910  ? — A.  That  is  not  on  there. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  on  the  envelope. 

The  Witness.  On  the  envelope  the  postmark  is  “  Mitchell,  Sept. 
12/1910,  A  M,  Ill.”  “Hon.  Lee  O’Neil  Browne,  Ottawa,  Ill.”  And 
in  the  corner  the  return  mark:  “  Return  in  five  days  to  M.  S.  Link. 
Mitchell,  Ill.”  On  the  back,  postmarked  “  Ottawa,  Sep.  13,  11:30  P. 
1910.  Ill.”  And  two  official  seals,  indicating  it  was  received  unopened. 
Judge  Hanecy.  Will  you  hand  it  to  the  stenographer? 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  stand  adjourned  until  to¬ 
morrow  morning  at  10  o’clock. 

(Whereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  Friday,  October  7. 
1910,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.) 


FRIDAY,  OCTOBER  7,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

At  10  o’clock  a.  m.  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Whereupon  the  following  members  of  the  subcommittee  wen 
present  :  Hon.  J.  C.  Burrows,  chairman,  Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble 
Hon.  W.  B.  Heyburn,  Hon.  Thomas  H.  Paynter,  Hon.  Joseph  P 
Johnston,  and  Hon.  James  B.  Frazier. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  619 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  Is  Mr. 
Browne  here? 

Lee  O’Neil  Browne  resumed  the  stand  for  further  examination 
ay  Mr.  Austrian,  and  testified  as  follows : 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  since  the  adjournment  of  this  committee  at  yester¬ 
day’s  session,  have  you  read  the  testimony  that  you  gave  here  yester- 
:lay? — A.  No,  I  can  not  say  I  have  read  it;  I  glanced  it  over. 

Q.  Will  you  please  keep  your  voice  up  ? — A.  I  said  that  I  can  not 
say  I  have  read  it ;  I  glanced  it  over  hurriedly. 

Q.  Within  what  space  of  time  would  you  say? — A.  Oh,  I  might 
aave  devoted  fifteen  minutes  to  it. 

Q.  And  you  found  it  substantially  accurate,  did  you  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  found  it  inaccurate? — A.  It  was  substantially  inaccurate; 
[  found  a  few  errors  in  it  which  could  creep  into  a  hurriedlv  pre¬ 
pared — 

Q.  A  hurriedly  prepared  what,  Mr.  Browne? — A.  A  record,  tran¬ 
script. 

Q.  Errors  of  the  transcribers,  and  not  of  the  witness? — A.  Why, 
1  would  think  so. 

Q.  But  I  mean,  as  far  as  your  testimony  is  concerned,  you  found 
hat  substantially  accurate,  did  you? — A.  No;  I  say  I  found  a  num- 
jer  of  errors  in  it  that  changed  the  meaning  of  the  testimony. 

Q.  Will  you  just  tell  us  what  corrections  you  desire  to  make? — A. 
[  can  not. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  your  testimony,  since  the  adjournment  of  this 
session  on  yesterday,  with  any  counsel  in  this  case? — A.  Not — Judge 
tlanecy,  yesterday,  after  the  adjournment,  called  my  attention  to  an 
expression  which  he  said  I  had  used,  and  I  insisted  I  had  not  used  it, 
ind  I  consulted  the  record  to  ascertain,  and  I  believe  I  was  right. 
[  don’t  know  whether  he  was  right  or  not. 

Q.  What  expression  was  it? — A.  A  question  you  put  to  me  em¬ 
bodied  the  phrase  “  round  up,”  “  rounding  up  the  votes,”  and  I  in¬ 
sisted  it  was  embodied  in  your  question  and  not  in  my  answer.  Judge 
Hanecy  insisted  it  was  in  my  answer.  I  found  out  I  was  correct, 
d though  I  answered  your  question  that  contained  it. 

Q.  Judge  Hanecy  has  represented  you  in  these  various  cases  that 
rou  have  had  in  Cook  County,  Ill.,  has  he  not? — A.  Not  on  the  trial 
jefore  the  jury  in  either  instance.  On  the  matter  of  the  argument 
)f — well,  the  preliminary  attack  upon  the  indictment  on  the  first 
rial,  Judge  Hanecy  argued  what  was  known  at  that  time  as  the 
federal  question,  before  Judge  McSurely,  and  also  a  matter  of  habeas 
corpus  before  Judge  Scanlan.  Otherwise,  he  did  not  participate  in 
iourt. 

Q.  But  he  was  one  of  your  counsel? — A.  Well,  I  have  stated  to 
fou - 

Q.  Did  you  consider  him  as  one  of  your  counsel,  and  do  you  still 
consider  him  as  one  of  your  counsel? — A.  Why,  I  can  not  answer 
hat,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Q.  Very  well,  that  is  all. — A.  I  want  to  say  this  to  you,  that  I 
consulted  him  upon  a  number  of  occasions,  and  still  do,  when  I  feel 

ike  it. 

Q.  Mr.  P.  H.  O’Donnell  was  also  one  of  your  counsel,  and  he  par¬ 
ticipated  in  the  trials? — A.  He  was  one  of  the  active  participating 
counsel  throughout  the  entire  case. 


620  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  were  tried  twice  in  Cook  County,  Ill.,  were 
3^011  not? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  this  is  the  first  time  you  have  ever  told  this  story  or  testi¬ 
fied  in  reference  to  these  matters,  is  it  not? — A.  It  is  the  first  time  I 
have  testified  at  all. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  testified  yesterday  with  reference  to  your  trips 
across  the  lake,  or  referred  to  them,  is  that  correct? — A.  Why,  men¬ 
tion  was  made  of  it. 

Q.  Who  made  up  the  party  on  those  several  trips? — A.  We  started 
on  Sun  da}- — let  me  think  a  moment,  please — Sunday,  the  15th  of 
August,  if  I  am  correct  as  to  the  15th,  and  I  think  I  am,  in  the  morn¬ 
ing,  Mr.  Zentner,  Mr.  Sturmer,  and  myself,  and  wTent  across  the  lake 
to  St.  Joe;  we  went  in  the  morning.  We  came  back  in  the  evening. 
Took  the  night  boat  back  to  St.  Joe;  Zentner  did  not  go.  We  got  to 
St.  Joe  Monday  morning,  or  Benton  Harbor  more  properly,  and 
came  over  to  St.  Joe  and  sta3red  there  during  the  day,  and  came  back, 
I  think,  upon  the  night  boat  Monday  night ;  stayed  in  Chicago  during 
the  day.  Tuesday  night  took  the  Goodrich  boat,  I  think  it  was,  but 
I  am  not  sure  as  to  that,  for  Muskegon.  Got  to  Muskegon  Wednes¬ 
day  morning.  Remained  in  Muskegon,  Lake  View,  and  surrounding 
territory  there  until  the  return  of  the  boat  in  the  evening ;  left  Muske¬ 
gon  in  the  evening  of  Wednesday  and  got  into  Chicago  on  Thursday 
morning.  Mr.  Zentner  was  with  us  on  the  trip  to  Muskegon  and  he 
was  a  member  of  the  party  on  the  first  trip  to  St.  Joe,  but  he  was 
not  on  the  second  trip  to  St.  Joe. 

Q,  Mr.  Browne,  the  party  was  enlarged  after  the  first  trip,  was 
it  not  ? — A.  No  and  yes,  both.  On  the  first  trip,  Mr.  White  met  some 
parties  on  the  boat  whom  he  introduced  to  both  myself  and  Mr. 
Zentner.  They  formed,  a  part  of  the  party,  both  on  the  first  trip  and 
on  the  second  trip,  one  of  them  a  part  of  the  party  on  the  first  trip 
to  Muskegon,  the  other  one,  no. 

Q,  Mr.  Browne,  when  White  came  to  Chicago,  in  August,  1909,  did 
he  have  any  money? — A.  I  didn’t  quite  understand  that  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Read  it. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  Oh,  I  think  so.  He  didn’t  ask  me  for  any,  and  he  was  spending 
some  money,  not  much. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  any  money  for  him? — A.  Why,  yes;  but  unless 
you  consider  it  essential,  I  do  not  care  to  relate  that  incident. 

Q.  How  much  was  the  money  that  you  kept? — A.  I  could  not  tell 
you. 

Q.  Did  you  afterwards  turn  it  back  to  him,  through  Mike  Gib- 
lin? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  gave  it  back  to  him  yourself? — A.  Yes;  that  is,  now  you 
may  be  confused  with  the  two  incidents.  I  borrowed  a  little  money 
from  him,  as  I  now  recollect,  during  some  one  of  those  days  on  the 
lake.  After  he  returned  to  Chicago,  owing  to  Mr.  White’s  condi¬ 
tion,  either  that  night  or  the  next  day,  and  I  can’t  tell  you,  because  I 
had  separated  from  the  party  after  I  got  in  Thursday  morning,  and 
was  attending  to  my  own  affairs,  but  either  that  night  or  the  next 
day,  owing  to  White’s  condition,  I  took  some  money  away  from  him. 
and  I  kept  it  until  I  went  home,  or  about  the  time  I  went  home,  and 
I  returned  it  to  him,  not  at  the  same  time,  I  think,  as  I  did  the 
money  that  I  borrowed.  The  money  that  I  borrowed  from  him  was 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  621 

Dniy  a  little  amount,  and  my  impression  is  that  I  gave  him  that  quite 
a  little  bit  before  I  went  home,  and  gave  him  the  amount  I  took  away 
from  him  just  before  I  went  home. 

Q.  You  say  the  amount  of  money  you  borrowed  from  him  was  a 
‘little  bit.”  Will  you  tell  us  how  much  it  was? — A.  Yes.  I  think 
somewhere  along — oh,  what  I  am  referring  to  is  something  less 
chan — somewhere  along  $20,  or  $25,  or  $30,  or  $35,  somewhere  along 
there. 

Q.  You  say  what  you  are  “  referring  to.”  Had  you  any  other 
transactions  from  him  when  you  borrowed  money  from  him? — A.  I 
just  told  you  I  took  some  away  from  him. 

Q.  Tell  us  how  much  that  was  ? — A.  I  can’t  tell  you. 

Q.  Was  it  as  much  as  $200? — A.  No. 

Q.  How  much  would  you  say  it  was? — A.  I  can’t  tell  you. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  say  you  separated  from  the  party? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  attended  to  your  business? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  where  did  you  spend  that  Thursday  evening? — A.  Now, 
[  was  around  the  hotel — I  was  around  the  hotel  a  part  of  that  even¬ 
ing.  Whether  I  was  there  all  the  evening  or  not  I  can  not  tell  you. 

Q.  You  heard  Mr.  Sturmer’s  and  Mr.  Zentner’s  testimony  on  two 
occasions,  have  you  not  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  know  what  they  say  with  reference  to  your  being  at 
;he  hotel  that  evening,  don’t  you? — A.  No;  well,  now - 

Q.  Well,  it  is  immaterial. — A.  Upon  that  evening  I  don’t  recall — 
is  I  recollect - 

Q.  Didn’t  you  go  to  the  theater  that  night? — A.  The  night  of - ■ 

Q.  Thursday  night,  that  you  got  home  in  the  morning;  back  to 
Chicago,  I  mean? — A.  I  hardly  think  so,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  go  to  the  theater  that  night  with  one  of  the  party 
vho  was  on  the  trip  with  you? — A.  I  don't  think  so. 

Q.  Now,  coming  to  Wilson’s  trip  to  St.  Louis,  Mr.  Browne,  you 
lave  seen  the  hotel  register  of  the  Southern  Hotel,  indicating  that 
Mr.  Wilson  was  there  on  the  15th  of  July,  haven’t  you? — A.  Now, 
Mr.  Austrian,  I  presume  that  I  did,  but  I  have  no  independent  recol¬ 
ection  of  looldng  at  that  page  of  the  register.  I  took  it  for  granted 
hat - 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  it  now?  It  is  the  third  signature  from  the 
op  [exhibiting  book  to  witness]. — A.  I  see  the  entry  you  refer  to. 

Q.  That,  together  with  the  statements  made  to  you  by  Mr.  Wilson 
-vith  reference  to  his  leaving  Chicago  to  go  to  St.  Louis  and  his 
statements  with  reference  to  having  been  in  St.  Louis,  does  that 
'efresh  your  recollection  as  to  the  date  that  you  say  Mr.  Wilson  left 
Jhicago  to  go  to  St.  Louis? — A.  No;  it  does  not  refresh  it  at  all,  be¬ 
muse  I  told  vou  yesterday  that  my  impression  was  that  he  left  upon 
he  14th  of  July. 

Q.  And  arrived  in  St.  Louis  on  the  15th? — A.  I  presume  so. 

Q.  And  you  arrived  home  on  the  same  day,  did  you? — A.  I  told 
mu  yesterday  that  I  am  not  sure  whether  I  went  home  on  the  14th — 
he  day  he  told  me  he  was  going  to  St.  Louis,  as  I  now  recollect — or 
-vhether  I  went  the  next  day,  and  I  am  not  any  more  certain  now. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Browne,  looking  at  the  letter  that  you  wrote  White 
>n  the  16th  day  of  July,  1909,  from  Ottawa,  Ill.,  will  you  say  that 
mu  left  Chicago  after  Mr.  Wilson  left  Chicago  for  St.  Louis  or 
)efore? — A.  Well,  that  does  not  help  me  out  at  all,  Mr.  Austrian.  I 


622  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

am  still  of  the  impression  that  I  was  yesterday  that  I  left  Chicago 
on  the  14th.  I  may  not  have  left  it  until  the  next  day. 

Q.  At  an}^  rate,  you  wrote  White  the  letter,  Exhibit  4,  dated  at 
Ottawa,  Ill.,  July  16,  1909? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  wrote  it  from  your  home  town,  Ottawa,  did  you  not? — 
A.  That  letter  was  written  in  my  home  town  of  Ottawa ;  yes. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  That  is  not  my  signature  to  it,  but  that  is  easily  ex¬ 
plained  in  this.  Sometimes  when  I  was  in  a  hurry  my  stenographer, 
under  my  instructions,  where  I  had  a  number  of  letters  I  did  not  wish 
to  wait  to  sign,  my  stenographer  would  sign  my  name  for  me. 

Q.  You  dictated  the  letter? — A.  Oh,  there  is  no  question  about 
that. 

Q.  And  it  is  your  letter? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  It  was  written  to  White  the  day  after  Wilson  was  in  St.  Louis 
and  White  was  in  St.  Louis? — A.  I  was  not  in  St.  Louis  at  all.  I 
presume  Mr.  Wilson  was  there  the  15tli.  I  assume  he  was  going  there, 
and  I  think  now  he  was  going  there. 

Q.  What  did  you  mean  in  your  letter  to  White  where  you  say,  “  I 
hope  everything  is  all  right  with  you  and  satisfactory?  ” — A.  I 
meant  what  I  said. 

Q.  Is  that  all  you  meant — what  you  said  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  did  3-011  refer  to,  what  did  you  have  in  mind,  when  you 
said  that  you  hoped  everything  was  satisfactory  the  day  after  White 
was  to  meet  Wilson  in  .St.  Louis? — A.  Why,  the  same  as  I  would 
have  in  mind,  Mr.  Austrian,  if  I  would  say  to  you,  “  Good  morning, 
Mr.  Austrian,  I  hope  everything  is  well  with  you  this  morning.” 

Q.  Why  did  you  add  that  you  hoped  he  was  “  fairly  prosper¬ 
ous?  ” — A.  I  told  you  that  the  word  “  prosperous,”  in  so  far  as  a  man 
can  look  backward  and  analyze  what  he  meant  by  what  he  said  months 
ago,  referred  to  my  hope  that  he  was  getting  along  and  that  he  had 
some  temporary  job,  at  least,  and  that  he  was  not  in  such  straitened 
circumstances  as  to  embarrass  him  or  deprive  him  of  what  he  needed. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  tell  this  committee  on  yesterday  that  up  to  the  15th 
day  of  July,  1909,  White  had  not  evidenced  any  signs  of  poverty  or 
straitened  circumstances? — A.  I  told  you - 

Q.  Now,  you  can  answer  that  yes  or  no.  Do  you  think  you  did  or 
didn’t? — A.  Well,  in  that  way - 

Q.  Answer  the  question. — A.  Well,  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Q.  Didn't  you  tell  this  committee  that  prior  to  the  16th  of  August 
vou  met  White  in  Chicago,  and  that  you  had  no  idea  that  he  had  no 
means;  that  he  had  gotten  twent}T-one  hundred  and  some  odd  dollars, 
or  some  such  amount,  from  his  salary  and  legislative  emoluments, 
whatever  they  were,  railroad  fare,  mileage,  etc.,  and  that  he  had 
shown  no  signs  of  lacking  funds  whatsoever  up  to  that  time? — A.  I 
said  part  of  that  and  part  of  it  I  did  not  say.  You  have  edited  it. 

Q.  Very  well;  that  is  an  answer  to  the  question. — A.  I  intended  it 
as  such. 

Q.  You  are  a  very  smart  man. — A.  Thank  you;  I  didn’t  know  I 
was. 

Q.  Did  you  know  of  any  arrangements  or  any  negotiations  or  any 
dealings  that  Wilson  was  to  see  White  upon  or  White  was  to  see 
Wilson  upon  that  would  or  could  have  terminated  satisfactory  or 
unsatisfactory? — A.  As  between  Wilson  and  White? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER,  623 


Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  refer  to  that  talk  of  a  proposed  banquet  when 
zou  wrote  that  letter,  did  you  ? — A.  Why,  scarcely,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Q.  That  was  not  in  your  mind  at  all,  was  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  said  you  were  making  a  canvass  for  minority 
eader  when  you  were  down  in  St.  Louis  in  June,  did  you  not? — A, 
So;  I  didn’t  say  that  or  anything  like  it. 

Q.  No.  But  you  said  you  were  down  there  for  the  purpose  of  see- 
ng  your  southern  Illinois  constituency,  because  you  hoped  to  be  a 
candidate  for  minority  leader  in  the  forty-seventh  general  assembly. 
-S  that  right? — A.  I  said  that,  and  I  said  other  things,  and  I  gave  a 
further  qualifying  explanation. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  when  you  were  a  candidate  for  minority  leader  in 
he  forty-sixth  general  assembly — that  is,  in  December,  1908 — did 
mu  ever  go  to  St.  Louis  and  meet  the  southern  Illinois  members  ? — 
L  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When? — A.  I  can  not  give  you  that,  Mr.  Austrian,  without 
•eferring  to  the  correspondence  that  you  have  here ;  but  it  was  some 
ime,  as  I  now  recollect,  some  time  in  December. 

Q.  1908? — A.  That  is  my  recollection. 

Q.  Then  you  met  them  in  December,  1908,  did  you  ? — A.  Met  who  ? 

Q.  The  southern  Illinois  members. — A.  Yes;  and  a  number  more 
>f  the  southern  Illinois  members  who  did  not  afterwards  form  a 
)art  of  the  Browne  faction. 

Q.  Before  you  met  them  on  June  15? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Or  some  of  them? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  then  did  you  ever  meet  them  from  June  15,  1909,  down  to 
he  present  time? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  At  St.  Louis? — A.  No;  at  East  St.  Louis,  but  not  at  St.  Louis. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  got  to  St.  Louis  on  the  morning  of  the  21st 
>f  June? — A.  That  is  my  recollection,  and  I  think  that  it  is  correct. 

Q.  Tell  this  committee  how  many  hours  you  were  in  the  city  of 
■it.  Louis? — A.  Well,  I  can  tell  you  if  you  will  tell  me  what  time 
he  train  leaves  there  in  the  evening.  I  can  not  tell  you  that. 

Q.  You  were  there  from  the  morning  until  the  evening,  were 
ou? — A.  I  am  not  certain  whether  it  was  morning  or  late  afternoon 
hat  the  train  left  there.  I  got  in  there  in  the  morning  about  8 
'clock,  and  went  at  once  to  the  Southern  Hotel. 

Q.  And  then  you  left  on  the  afternoon  or  evening  train,  is  that  cor- 
ect? — A.  Yes,  that  is  right. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  feel  at  liberty  to  call  your  southern  Illinois  con- 
tituency  to  go  from  their  homes,  at  their  own  expense,  to  the  city 
f  St.  Louis,  on  every  and  any  occasion  that  you  desired  to  meet 
hem? — A.  Yes,  sir;  yes,  sir;  and  I  knew  that  serious  business  mat¬ 
ers  not  preventing,  they  would  come. 

Q.  You  testified  on  yesterday  that  there  was  the  question  of  pat- 
onage? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Minority  state  patronage? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  referred  to  state  jobs,  did  it  not,  or  jobs  under  the  ad- 
linistration,  the  state  administration,  did  it? — A.  It  meant  state 
'ositions,  offices,  yes. 

Q.  And  those  were  to  be  given  out  by  the  governor  of  the  state, 
/ere  they? — A.  Yes. 


624  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Then  there  was  such  a  thing  as  state  jobs,  even  for  the  minority 
faction  of  the  Democratic  party,  were  there? — A.  We  do  not  usually 
refer  to  them  as  “jobs/’ 

Q.  That  is  a  very  shocking  word? — A.  No;  but  it  has  not  been 
common. 

Q.  What  are  they,  offices? — A.  Yes,  or  positions. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  Mr.  White  was  a  staunch  supporter  of  yours,  I 
believe  you  said,  on  some  occasions? — A.  Yes;  Mr.  White  was  a 
staunch  and  strong  adherent  and  supporter  of  mine  all  through  the 
session,  so  far  as  I  knew. 

Q.  When  for  the  first  time  did  you  notice  any  change,  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  his  support  of  Lee  O’Neil  Browne? — A.  Well,  not  until  the 
first  installment  or  first  section  of  the  special  session. 

Q.  That  was  in  December? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  You  know,  don’t  you,  Mr.  Browne? — A.  Why,  I  don’t  know 
positively,  Mr.  Austrian,  without  looking  at  the  records. 

Q.  Well,  give  us  your  best  recollection? — A.  I  have  given  you  my 
best  recollection. 

Q.  In  that  letter,  Mr.  Browne,  did  not  Mr.  'WTiite  say  to  you  in 
substance  that  he  had  no  kick  coming,  that  he  had  gotten  out  of  all 
sources  exactly  what  had  been  promised  him,  or  words  to  that 
etfect? — A.  Mr.  White?  Never. 

Q.  Yes  or  no  will  answer  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  him  answer.  Mr.  Austrian. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  do  not  need  a  speech  about  that 
He  can  say  “  ves  ”  or  “  no.”  That  is  perfectly  plain  question. 

A.  No. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  Mr.  White  did  write  you  in  December,  1909,  didn't 
he? — A.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Q.  He  did  not  write  you  a  letter  in  December,  1909,  that  you  sub¬ 
sequently  characterized  as  a  “  blackmailing  letter." — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When? — A.  February  27,  1910. 

Q.  And  when  did  you  first  ascertain  that  he  had  written  a  lettei 
to  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Not  until  the  article  appeared  in  the  Chicago 
Tribune  of  the  date  of  April  30,  and  until  I  began  the  preparatioi 
of  my  defense  did  I  know  or  learn  that  any  such  letter  had  been  writ 
ten  to  Senator  Lorimer. 

Q.  Now,  when  you  received  this  so-called  blackmailing  letter  oi 
February,  1910,  did  you  then  reply  to  Mr.  White,  or  seek  out  Mr 
White,  or  send  Mr.  White  any  word  with  reference  thereto? — A 
That  is  the  very  thing  that  I  did  not  do. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  I  believe  you  stated  yesterday  that  your  acquain 
tance  with  Mr.  Lorimer  was  a  passing  acquaintance  up  to  the  ter¬ 
mination  of  the  first  third  of  the  session  of  the  forty-sixth  genera 
assembly.  Is  that  correct  ? — A.  I  think  that  is  accurately  stated. 

Q.  That  is  the  fact,  is  it  ? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  the  first  third  of  the  session  of  the  forty-sixth  genera 
assembly  terminated  about  in  March,  1909,  did  it,  or  February 
1909? — A.  Yes;  along  in  there.  ,  X 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  if  Mr.  Lorimer  in  his  speech,  which  is  part  of  thf 
record  in  this  case,  says  that  “  I  became  very  intimate  with  him, 
referring  to  you,  “  several  years  ago.  during  the  session  of  the  legis 
lature,”  was-  that  statement  correct  or  incorrect? — A.  Well,  now 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  625 

rom  my  standpoint,  no:  it  may  be  entirely  correct  from  the  stand¬ 
out  of  Senator  Lorimer.  Up  to  the  time  of  our  acquaintance  in 
909  I  looked  upon  Senator  Lorimer  as  moving  in  a  different  sphere 
iian  myself,  a  good  deal  higher  plane.  I  did  not  class  myself  on  an 
qual  with  him  politically  and  I  looked  to  him,  in  a  measure,  from 
far.  I  was  not  intimately  acquainted  with  him.  I  knew  him.  I 
ad  a  speaking  acquaintance  with  him,  but  I  was  not  on  such  terms 
Tith  him  that  I  could  go  to  him  and  say  “  Senator,  so  and  so,”  or 
thus  and  so”;  it  was  a  mere  speaking  acquaintance. 

Q.  Why,  didn’t  you  testify  yesterday  that  it  was  hardly  a  speak- 
lg  acquaintance? — A.  No,  I  did  not;  I  told  you  that  it  was  a 
asual  speaking  acquaintance. 

Q.  Then  if  the  transcript  shows  that  you  said  that  “  I  never  knew 
Senator  Lorimer  except  to  see  him  and  by  reputation,  a  mere  pass- 
ig  acquaintance,”  that  is  hardly  a  speaking  acquaintance.  Is  that 
orrect  or  incorrect? — A.  Yes;  that  is  correct.  That  is,  using  the 
um  “  hardly,”  there  I  w~ould  interpret  that  expression  to  mean  just 
hat  I  now  mean,  that  it  was  a  mere  passing  acquaintance,  with  no 
itimacy  at  all  from  my  standpoint. 

Q.  Yes.  Mr.  Browne,  thajt  acquaintance,  however,  ripened,  did  it, 
rom  the  first  third  of  the  session  of  the  Illinois  legislature,  the 
3rty-sixth,  down  to  May  26,  1909? — A.  Well,  it  began  becoming 
lore  intimate  from  along  the  very  first  of  the  session,  and  I  will 
xplain  to  you — and  yet  not  anything  more  of  a  friendly  way  for 
while,  either — and  I  will  explain  to  you  if  you  care  to  have  me. 

Q.  We  will  get  that  later;  I  want  to  know  the  fact. — A.  That  is 
11  I  want  to  tell  you. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  when  this  intimate  acquaintance,  if  one  existed, 
as  formed  between  you  and  Mr.  Lorimer;  time  I  want,  days  or 
lonths. — A.  Well,  I  say  that  the  acquaintance,  so  far  as  becoming 
:quainted  was  concerned,  an  intimacy  was  concerned,  began  increas- 
ig,  of  course,  with  the  opening  of  the  session,  because  from  the 
eginning  of  the  session — nearly  the  beginning  of  the  session  of 
909- — down  to  its  close,  Senator  Lorimer  was  there  a  great  deal  of 
le  time,  a  thing  that  he  had  never  done  during  any  previous  session 
i  which  I  was  serving  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Q.  But,  notwithstanding  the  growth  of  your  acquaintance  with 
enator  Lorimer,  up  to  the  time  that  his  name  had  been  suggested 
•5  a  candidate  for  United  States  Senator  by  Mr.  Shurtleff,  you  had 
iven  the  thing  no  consideration  whatsoever? — A.  Oh,  yes;  I  had. 
hat  is,  I  told  you  that  the  matter  was  spoken  of  between  Mr.  Shana- 
an  and  myself,  but  I  had  given  it  no  serious  thought,  because  I  had 
ot  looked  at  it  in  the  light,  at  that  time,  of  a  probable  candidacy. 

Q.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Browne,  is  it  not  the  fact  that  up  to  the  time 
Ir.  Shurtleff  talked  to  you  on  the  subject  you  had  given  his  candi- 
acy  no  serious  consideration? — A.  No  more  than  what  I  have  told 
au. 

Q.  And  that  was  none,  was  it  not? — A.  I  have  explained  it  the 
Ast  I  can  to  you. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  stated,  I  believe,  that  you  met  Mr.  White  in 
hicago  on  or  about  the  15th  day  of  June,  1909.  Is  that  correct? — 
..  I  can  not  say  that.  I  was  at  the  Briggs  House  the  15th,  16th, 
ad  17th  of  June;  so  was  Mr.  White;  the  register  shows  it.  During 
lat  time  I  presume  I  met  him  a  number  of  times. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942, 61-3 - 40 


626  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Then  you  did  meet  him  on  or  about  the  15th  day  of  June,  die 
you  not? — A.  I  can  not  say  whether  I  did  or  not.  During  thai 
three-day  period  I  met  him  several  times,  doubtless,  and  I  know  thai 
I  met  him ;  but  whether  I  met  him  on  the  15th  or  not  I  do  not  know 

Q.  Well,  it  was  on  or  about  the  15th  that  you  met  him,  if  you  me 
him  on  the  15th,  16th,  or  17th.  was  it  not? — A.  Well,  it  depends  upor 
what  you  mean  by  your  qualifying  word  “  about.” 

Q.  Well,  now,  you  met  him  by  appointment,  didn’t  you? — A.  No 
sir. 

Q.  Look  at  the  letter  which  I  hand  you,  dated  June  13th,  and  tel 
me  if  you  did  not  meet  him  by  appointment? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  did  not? — A.  No. 

Q.  I  thought  you  told  us  a  moment  ago  that  you  never  referred  tc 
a  man  who  occupied  or  sought  a  position  as  a  “  job  hunter?  ” — A 
I  don’t  say  so ;  I  said  I  did  not. 

Q.  In  this  letter  of  June  13th  you  say,  “  I  don’t  want  to  be  botherec 
by  every  job  hunter,”  didn’t  you? — A.  There  was  a  great  many  o; 
those. 

Q.  And  you  refer  to  a  man  seeking  an  office  under  the  State  oi 
Illinois  as  a  “  job  hunter?  ” — A.  No. 

Q.  And  you  referred  to  the  position  as  a  “job,”  too,  didn’t  you?— 
A.  No,  no.  The  job  hunters  that  I  referred  to  do  not  get  positions 
under  the  State  of  Illinois,  as  a  rule. 

Q.  They  get  them  under  minority  leaders,  do  they,  or  the  factotums 
of  the  party? — A.  No;  nobody  can  get  anything  under  a  minority 
leader ;  it  is  by  the  grace  of  the  powers  that  be  that  they  get  anything 

Q.  Now,  you  say  in  this,  and  this  is  dated  the  13th  day  of  June— 
you  say  that  you  are  due  in  court  to-morrow  and  that  you  will  be  ii 
Chicago  Tuesday  or  Wednesday.  Is  that  correct? — A.  What  is  ii 
there  is  correct. 

Q.  And  that  was  a  suggestion,  was  it  not,  or  a  direction  to  Mr 
White  that  you  would  meet  him  in  Chicago  if  he  could  wait  thai 
long,  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  the  following  week,  was  it  not? — A 
You  can  take  it  that  way,  if  you  please;  I  simply  said - 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  how  you  take  it  ? — A.  I  am  trying  to  tell  you 
I  simply  stated  to  him  when  I  would  be  in  Chicago,  and  he  could  set 
me  there  if  he  happened  to  be  there. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  say,  “  If  you  can  wait  I  will  do  my  best  to  see.  1 
will  be  at  the  Briggs  House.”  Didn’t  you  say  that? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  didn’t  you  say  it  for  the  purpose  of  having  him  meet  yoi 
there  ? — A.  I  did  it  for  the  purpose  of  giving  him  an  opportunity  o 
seeing  me  if  he  wanted  to,  as  he  had  written  me  that  he  did  want  to 

Q.  Where  is  the  letter  that  you  received  in  reply  to  this  letter — 1( 
which  this  letter  of  June  13,  1909,  is  a  reply? — A.  There  are  twi 
letters,  one  I - 

Q.  Have  you  got  them,  either  one  of  them? — A.  Mr.  Chairman 
may  I  answer? 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  will  you  pardon  the  Chair  : 
When  you  have  asked  a  question  should  not  the  witness  be  permittee 
to  answer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  certainly,  certainly. 

The  Witness.  There  are  two  letters;  one  of  the  date  of  June  6 
written  from  O'Fallon,  Ill.,  to  me  by  Mr.  White;  another  of  th( 
date — I  can’t  just  state,  but  to  which  this  letter  of  the  13th  is  ai 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  627 


nswer.  Neither  one  of  these  letters  have  I  been  able  to  finch  They 

7ere  either  lost  or  destroved.  I  was  .unable  to  find  them:  I  never 

«/  / 

ave  been  able  to  find  them. 

Q.  N  ow,  Mr.  Browne,  I  desire  to  ask  you - A.  I  can  tell  you 

chat  they  were  about,  though,  if  you  care  to  hear  me. 

Q.  But  they  are  destroyed,  are  they? — A.  I  stated  so - 

Q.  Well,  that  is  all - A.  I  don't  know  whether  they  are  de- 

troyed. 

Q.  But  you  can  not  find  them? — A.  I  can  not  find  them. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  stated  that  you  were  never  in  Mr.  White’s 
oom  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  in  your  life;  is  that  correct? — A. 
to;  I  did  not  say  that;  I  said  I  did  not  know  where  Mr.  White’s 
oom  was. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  state  that  you  had  never  been  in  his  room? — A. 
don't  know  whether  I  did  or  not,  but  I  will  state  to  you  that  I 
ave  no  recollection  of  ever  being  in  Mr.  White’s  room  "in  the  St. 
Nicholas  Hotel  in  my  life. 

Q.  Well,  was  Mr.  White  ever  in  your  room  ? — A.  Oh,  yes ;  yes. 

Q.  On  or  about  the  24th  or  25th  of  May,  1909? — A."  Well,  now, 
hich  do  you  mean?  There  are  two  days. 

Q.  Well,  on  the  24th  or  25th  of  May,  1909? — A.  Well,  you  will 
ave  to  let  me  start  with  the  24th. 

Q.  Well,  was  he  in  your  room  the  24th  of  May,  1909?  Yes  or  no. 
Either  Mr.  White  was  there  or  he  was  not  there. — A.  I  can  not 
nswer  it  that  way. 

Q.  Then  you  can  not  answer  it  ? — A.  Yes ;  I  can. 

Q.  Was  he  there  on  the  25th  of  May,  1909? — A.  Wait  a  minute, 
can  answer  the  question  and  I  would  like  to,  but  I  can  not  answer 
by  “  yes  ”  or  “  no.” 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  him  answer. 

The  Witness.  The  24th  day  of  May,  1909,  was  on  Monday.  I  came 
)  Springfield  the  day  before,  Sunday,  the  23d,  and  registered  at 
le  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  and  occupied  my  usual  quarters.  I  did  not 
>e  Mr.  White  during  the  day  of  May  24.  The  Alton  train,  known  as 
le  “  Kansas  City  hummer  ”  or  “  K.  C.  hummer,”  is  due  in  Spring- 
eld  at  11.15  at  night.  That  is  the  train  people  interested  in  legis- 
itive  matters  and  members  that  come  by  the  Alton  usually  come  on. 
>n  the  night  of  May  24  Mr.  Thomas  Dawson  came  down  on  that 
ain.  I  met  him  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  when  he  came  in.  The 
■ain  was  late  that  night  and,  as  I  have  discovered,  did  not  get  to 
pringfield  until,  as  I  remember,  11.41.  I  talked  with  Mr.  Dawson 
>me  time  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel,  asking  him  to  do  something  for 
ie,  which  he  did  there  in  the  lobby,  speaking  to  a  certain  person 
lere  for  me;  all  of  this  before  he  registered.  Thereafter  he  regis- 
Ted  and  was  assigned  to  a  room  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel.  Mr. 
/hite  did  not  register  until  after  Mr.  Dawson  did,  his  name  appear- 
ig  immediately  after  Mr.  Dawson’s,  so  that  Mr.  White  could  not 
ave  had  a  room  that  night  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  before  he 
igistered  and  he  could  not  have  registered  before  midnight.  I 
light  have  seen  Mr.  White  after  midnight  at  my  room;  that  is,  he 
ay  have  been  there.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it.  Mr.  Cermak  was 
ot  there  that  night.  He  did  not  come  until  the  next  day,  as  I  now 
xjollect.  I  think  Mr.  Ayres — I  think  it  was  the  night  of  May  24 


G28  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

♦ 

that  Mr.  Ayres  occupied  my  apartments  with  me  and  went  to  m} 
rooms  with  me  when  I  went  up  that  night.  I  think  it  was  quite 
late  when  I  went;  I  think  it  was  1  o’clock  or  later  when  I  went  tc 
my  rooms.  It  is  altogether  possible  that  Mr.  White  may  have  come 
to  my  rooms  after  that  time;  I  do  not  know.  Members  came  to  m} 
rooms — they  were  headquarters — came  to  my  rooms  every  day,  ever} 
night,  back  and  forth.  If  Mr.  White  did  come  to  my  room  at  that 
time  upon  that  night,  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Browne,  your  mind  is  extremely  accurate,  h 
it  not,  with  reference  to  your  talks  with  Mr.  Dawson  and  what  toot 
place  when  the  train  came  in  and  what  Mr.  Dawson  did  before  la 
registered  and  what  time  he  registered,  and  it  must  have  been  aftei 
11.41;  your  mind  is  perfectly  accurate  on  it,  is  it? — A.  More  so  thar 
a  man  who  had  not  been  through  what  I  have  in  the  last  five  months 

Q.  But  the  main  thing  you  have  been  through  is  with  reference 
to  Mr.  White  having  been  at  your  room  on  the  24th  and  25th  ol 
May,  is  it  not? — A.  No;  that  is  one  of  the  things. 

Q.  Was  not  that  the  basis  of  the  entire  supposed  or  alleged  illega 
transaction  between  you  and  Mr.  White? — A.  That  is  not.  as  I  under 
stand  it.  Mr.  White  charges  a  conversation,  which  was  the  incep¬ 
tion  of  this  matter,  to  have  taken  place  at  my  room  between  himsell 
and  me  on  that  night. 

Q.  So  that  was  as  important  an  incident  as  any  that  occurred 
was  it  not  ? — A.  I  think  it  was  a  very  important  incident. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  I  ask  you  whether  or  not  you  can  tell  the 
committee  whether  Mr.  White  was  in  your  rooms  or  you  in  Mr 
White’s  rooms  on  the  day  or  night  of  May  25,  other  than  the  earl} 
morning  of  May  25,  when  you  say  it  might  have  occurred  aftei 
12  o’clock? — A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it,  and  I  would  like  tc 
say,  Mr.  Austrian,  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  any  man  to  truth¬ 
fully  remember  a  matter  of  that  kind  when  he  had  30  or  more 
35—137  or  more  legislative  members  who  were  constantly  coming 
and  going  to  see  him  about  those  matters. 

Q.  That  was  a  pretty  active  time  in  your  legislative  experience 
was  it  not? — A.  No  more  so  than  the  entire  session  had  been,  Mr 
Austrian.  It  was  a  very  stormy  session,  a  very  bitter  session  on  the 
Democratic  side ;  very  bitter  strife  between  the  two  sections. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr;  Chairman,  I  submit  that  I  do  not  need  to  havi 
a  speech  after  every  answer.  Now,  I  have  asked  him  a  simple  ques 
tion.  He  can  either  answer  “  yes  ”  or  “  no  ”  or  not  answer  at  all,  oi 
that  he  can  not  answer.  I  submit  I  have  not  got  to  take  a  speed 
after  every  answer.  That  is  a  brief  and  simple  question. 

Senator"  Burrows.  Mr.  Reporter,  will  you  read  the  question. 

(Question  read,  and  also  the  answer  read.) 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  the  objection  to  that  answer? 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  it  was  a  pretty  strenuous  time  he  may  sa} 
“yes”  or  “no;  it  was  not.” 

Senator  Paynter.  Does  your  question  not  suggest  more  at  that 
time  than  the  balance  of  the  session,  and  his  answer  is  in  response  tc 
the  whole  time?  Is  it  not  responsive? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  not  asking  him  whether  or  not  it  was  more 
strenuous. 

Senator  Paynter.  But  does  not  the  answer  suggest  it  was  prett) 
active  at  that  time? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  629 
By  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  were  t lie  30  Democrat  members  of  your  faction 
vhom  you  have  stated  yesterday  that  you  assured  Mr.  Lorimer 
vould  vote  for  him — were  they  in  consultation  with  you  on  the  24th 
md  25th  of  May? — A.  I  can  not  answer  that  yes  or  no. 

Q.  Well,  answer  it  in  your  own  way. — A.  Very  well.  After  I 
lad  determined  to  be  for  Senator  Lorimer,  to  further,  in  so  far  as 
ny  humble  efforts  could,  his  election,  I  began  feeling  out,  so  to  speak, 
md  ascertaining  how  the  so-called  Browne  Democrats  would  be  on 
he  matter.  I  did  that  in  various  ways.  I  do  not  want  fo  tire  you. 

Q.  I  do  not  care  for  that  testimony  every  question.  I  simply  ask 
rou  whether  the  30  Democrats  that  you  assured  Senator  Lorimer 
vould  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  were  in  frequent  conference  with 
lim  ? — A.  No ;  you  asked  on  May  24.  I  am  trying  to  explain.  Well, 
isk  the  question. 

Q.  You  told  Senator  Lorimer,  didn’t  you,  that  you  could  assure  him 
hat  there  would  be  30  Democratic  votes  for  him  ? — A.  In  substance, 

■es. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  have  30  Democratic  votes  in  mind;  30  specific 
democratic  votes  in  mind  when  you  told  him  that? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  those  30  men.  or  any  of  them,  confer  with  you  or  talk 
o  you  with  reference  to  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  on  the  24th  or  25th 
>f  May,  or  either  of  those  two  days,  1909  ? — A.  I  do  not  know,  but  I 
iresume  that  some  of  them  did  upon  both  of  those  days,  and  I  pre- 
ume  some  of  them  did  several  times  upon  both  of  those  days.  These 
inferences  between  myself  and  the  several  members  took  place  for  a 
veek  or  ten  days,  down  to  the  time  of  the  election ;  various  days. 

Q.  And  the  30  Democratic  votes  that  you  have  referred  to  were  the 
i0  names  that  you  read  off  here  yesterday,  weren’t  they? — A.  Which 
i0  Democratic  votes  were? 

Q.  Whom  you  had  assured  Mr.  Lorimer  would  vote  for  him? — A. 
!  told  Mr.  Lorimer  along  the  earliest  of  our  conferences,  among  the 
■arliest  of  our  conferences,  that  I  believed,  I  believed  that  there  would 
>e  about  30  of  the  Browne  Democrats  who  would  be  willing  to  vote 
‘or  him.  I  believed  so.  I  did  not  tell  him  which  ones.  I  told  you 
Testerday  that  I  didn’t  know  as  I  ever  told  him  or  recited  to  him  the 
ist  in  full.  Now,  the  particular  30  that  finally  voted  for  Mr.  Lori- 
ner,  I  do  not  think  I  had  all  tabulated  as  certain  and  sure,  certainly 
lot  before  the  24th  of  May,  and  probably  not  before  the  25th.  A  good 
uany  of  them,  yes,  before  that;  all  of  them,  no.  That  is  the  best  I 
an  say. 

Q.  And  you  did  have  them  on  the  morning  of  the  26th? — A.  They 

oted. 

Q.  Now,  you  told  Mr.  Lorimer,  as  you  did  Mr.  Shurtleff,  did  you 
lot,  that  you  would  not  consent  to  have  those  Democratic  votes  cast 
iselessly?  Is  that  correct? — A.  I  did  more  than  that,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Q.  You  told  them  that  much,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  told  them  more;  I 
mt  it  different. 

Q.  You  did  not  say  that  you  would  not  have  them  cast  use- 
essly? — A.  I  did  that,  and  1  did  more;  I  put  it  more  forcefully  than 
hat.  I  made  it  a  matter  of  honor  with  Senator  Lorimer  and  Mr. 
Shurtleff  both  that  no  roll  call  for  Mr.  Lorimer  should  be  started 
intil  with  counting  30  votes  from  my  faction  they  had  assuredly 
;  no  ugh  to  guarantee  an  election. 


630  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

•  • 

Q.  And  3*011  thought,  did  yon,  that  by  permitting  your  30  votes,  or 
the  ones  }7ou  referred  to  in  your  talks  with  Mr.  Lorimer,  to  vote  for 
Mr.  Lorimer,  without  an  assurance  of  enough  voting  for  the  election, 
would  be  casting  them  uselessly,  did  you? — A.  Why,  naturally. 

Q.  Now,  why  did  you  hesitate  to  have  your  30  Democratic  votes, 
or  the  ones  you  referred  to  as  being  the  30,  not  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
until  he  had  assured  you  he  had  enough  for  election? — A.  Because, 
Mr.  Austrian,  the  world  loves  a  winner  and  does  not  like  a  loser. 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  reason  ? — A.  That  is  a  good  one. 

Q.  That  is  your  judgment  of  being  a  good  one? — A.  That  is  the 
main  one. 

Q.  That  is  the  best  reason  you  know  of? — A.  It  is  the  only  one  I 
am  giving  you  now. 

Q.  Well,  is  that  the  best  one  you  know  ? — A.  I  have  given  you  my 
recollection;  I  did  not  propose  to  have  those  gentlemen,  with  my 
consent,  go  down  in  a  lost  cause. 

Q.  Why,  didn’t  you  hear  or  haven’t  you  read  the  testimony  of 
many  Democrats  in  evidence  before  this  subcommittee  who  were 
willing  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  at  any  time? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Who  were  numbered  among  the  30  that  you  referred  to? — A. 
Yes;  and  they  probably  would  have  done  it  with  or  without  my 
consent. 

Q.  But  you  would  not  consent,  would  you? — A.  No,  no;  I  would 
not  have  done  it  myself  unless  I  felt  sure. 

Q.  That  is  all  right;  but  you  would  not  consent,  would  you? — A. 
1  said  so. 

Q.  And  without  your  consent  they  did  not  do  it,  did  they? — A. 
Why,  they  were  not  called  upon  to  do  it. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  give  them  the  signal  or  tell  them  when  they 
might  do  it? — A.  No;  I  told  you  yesterday  that  I  was  not  carrying 
around  any  votes  in  my  pocket.  I  was  looked  to  by  those  men  as  the 
leader  and  the  adviser  and  counsellor,  and  I  certainly  had  conveyed 
to  them  the  information  in  one  way  or  another,  either  personally  or 
otherwise,  that  there  were  enough  votes,  and  that  the  roll  call  for  the 
election  of  Senator  Lorimer,  or  the  attempt  to  elect  him,  would  be 
called  upon  that  day. 

Q.  And  who  assured  you  that  Senator  Lorimer  had  enough  other 
votes,  other  than  the  30  you  referred  to,  to  elect  him  ? — A.  Well,  Mr. 
Lorimer,  Senator  Lorimer  did,  Mr.  Shurtleff  did,  Mr.  Shanahan  did ; 
and  I  was  pretty  well  conversant  naturally  with  the  condition  of  that 
house  myself,  and  I  verified  some  things. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  you  dealt  directly  with  Mr.  Lorimer  on  the  sub¬ 
ject,  after  the  two  weeks,  after  you  had  made  up  your  mind,  after 
your  talk  with  Mr.  Shurtleff,  did  you  not? — A.  There  were  no  deal¬ 
ings  at  all,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Q.  Your  negotiations,  then,  whatever  they  may  have  been. — A. 
There  were  no  negotiations. 

Q.  Your  discussions  with  reference  to  Mr.  Lorimer’s  candidacy  for 
United  States  Senator  were  direct  with  Mr.  Lorimer,  weren’t  they?— 
A.  Yes;  I  almost  invariably  met  him  in  the  rooms  occupied  jointly 
by  himself  and  Edward  Shurtleff,  and  almost  invariably  there  would 
be  found  there  not  only  Mr.  Lorimer  and  Mr.  Shurtleff,  but  also  Mr. 
Shanahan  and  a  number  of  others  of  the  so-called  Shurtleff-Lorimer 
crowd. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  631 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  when  for  the  first  time  did  you  ascertain  that  any- 
le  was  investigating  the  story  put  out  bv  Mr.  White  or  anything 
ith  reference  to  the  legislative  proceeding  pertaining  to  the  election 
f  Mr.  Lorimer  or  otherwise? — A.  Why,  I  heard  rumors  of  that — oh, 
won’t  be  sure,  some  short  time  before  April  30. 

Q.  How  short  is  your  best  recollection? — A.  Oh,  two  or  three 
eeks,  possibly. 

Q.  Did  you  come  to  Chicago  ? — A.  When  do  you  mean  ? 

Q.  Within  that  time,  after  you  heard  the  rumors,  as  you  put  it,  and 
pril  30? — A.  I  presume  so;  I  think  I  did  probably  several  times. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  Mr.  Shephard  ? — A.  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  meet  him  at  the  Briggs  House  the  Sunday  preced- 
,g  the  30th  of  April  ? — A.  I  may  have. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  that  you  "did? — A.  Well,  I  am  not  sure  of 
leeting  him  there  at  that  particular  time.  I  may  have;  I  don’t  say 
iat  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  not  meet  him  there  with  Mr.  Wilson,  Wilson  and  Shep- 
lrd  with  you  at  the  same  time  ? — A.  I  don’t  recall  of  Mr.  Wilson  and 
'r.  Shephard  being  there ;  it  may  be  they  were. 

Q.  Didn't  you  and  Shephard  and  Wilson  go  to  the  train  to- 
ither? — A.  No,  I  don’t  think  so. 

Q.  Didn’t  Mr.  Wilson  shortly  after  go  to  Springfield,  if  you 
iow  ? — A.  I  don’t  know,  Mr.  Austrian.  I  might  have  been  aware  of 
lat  fact,  too,  but  if  I  was  I  have  no  recollection  of  it  now. 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson  and  you  have  seen  a  good  deal  of  each  other,  have 
)u  not? — A.  Oh,  yes;  Mr.  Wilson  is  an  intimate  friend  of  mine. 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson  would  know  more  about  the  St.  Louis  transaction 
tan  any  other  living  man,  wouldn’t  he  ? — A.  I  don’t  know  what  you 
ean  about  the  St.  Louis  transaction. 

Q.  What  occurred  at  St.  Louis. — A.  When? 

Q.  When  he  was  there,  the  21st  day  of  July,  the  15th  day  of  July.— 
.  You  mean  what  occurred  between  him  and  those  members? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Why,  undoubtedly. 

Q.  Haven’t  you  enough  influence  with  Mr.  Wilson  to  get  him  to 
>me  before  this  honorable  committee,  to  tell  this  committee  about 
lat  transaction? — A.  I  don’t  know  how  much  influence  I  have  got 
ith  Mr.  Wilson.  I  don’t  know  whether  in  the  condition  that  Mr. 
filson  was  in  the  last  time  I  saw  him,  I  would — unless  it  has  im- 
roved — I  would  try  to  urge  upon  him  anything  that  required  any 
rain  or  effort.  I  would  like  to  tell  you  of  his  condition  when  I  last 
tw  him,  if  you  care  to  hear  it. 

Senator  Gamble.  When  did  you  last  see  him? — A.  Oh,  it  was 
lortly  after  the  primaries,  possibly  within  a  week  after  the  pri- 

aries. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  was  the  15th  of  September. — A.  Of  Sep- 
mber. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  primaries  of  this  year? — A.  Yes. 

Senator  Gamble.  And  where  did  you  see  him? — A.  I  saw  him  over 
t  the  Briggs  House  or  I  saw  him  upon  the  street. 

Q.  Subsequently  to  that  day? — A.  Subsequently  to  the  15th;  it 
as  within  a  few  days  after  that. 

Senator  Frazier.  Do  you  know  where  he  is  now? — A.  I  do  not;  I 
o  not,  Senator.  I  did  know  that  he  was  in  Milwaukee,  but  my  im- 
re  si  on  is  gained  from  things  that  I  have  heard  indirectly  from  his 


632  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

people  that  he  is  not  there.  He  may  be.  He  was  at  a  sanitarium  ii 
Milwaukee  or  under  treatment  by  a  doctor  there  for  some  time.  Thai 
was  before  the  primaries,  however,  he  had  to  go  away. 

Senator  Gamble.  What  do  you  know  personally,  Mr.  Browne,  as  t( 
his  physical  and  mental  condition,  to  which  you  refer? — A..  Roberi 
Wilson  is  of  a  very  high-strung,  sensitive  make,  physically  and  men 
tally  both,  and  I  do  not  think  he  ever  had  a  hardship  or  a  battle  in  hr 
life,  politically  or  otherwise,  until  this,  and  he  took  it  harder  than  any 
body  I  ever  saw.  When  I  last  saw  him  he  was — well,  he  had  losi 
about  20  pounds.  He  was  nearly  blind,  and  he  was  a  complete  ner¬ 
vous  wreck;  that  was  his  condition. 

Senator  Heybtjrn.  How  was  his  mental  condition? — A.  Corre 
sponding  to  his  physical  condition — nervous.  It  affected  him  in  thai 
way.  Just  the  condition  you  would  expect  from  a  man  in  Thai 
nervous  condition.  I  do  not  mean  incapacitated;  I  do  not  mean  to  be 
misunderstood.  I  do  not  mean  incapacitated  from  moving  around  oi 
from  engaging  in  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  life  to  a  certain  extent,  bir 
in  a  condition  if  I  was  in  it  I  would  feel  alarmed  and  want  treatment 

Senator  Gamble.  How  long  since  did  you  know  or  learn  that  h( 
was  in  a  sanitarium  in  Milwaukee? — A.  Oh,  he  was  in  a  sanitarian 
in  Milwaukee — in  there  along  before  the  primaries.  In  fact  he  had  t( 
have  his  campaign  carried  on  largely  by  proxy. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  was  in  a  sanitarium  there  since  tin 
primaries  ? — A.  Xo ;  I  do  not  know  whether  he  is  or  not,  but  I  say  1 
gathered  from  things  I  have  heard  indirectly  from  his  people  that  In 
is  not  there  now. 

Q.  I  am  prompted  to  make  this  inquiry  simply  from  the  fact  tha 
there  has  been  a  subpoena  out  for  his  appearance  for  some  time  anc 
diligent  effort  has  been  made  as  to  service  and  to  bring  him  before 
the  committee. 

By  Senator  IIeyburn: 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  when  did  you  see  him  in  Chicago? — A.  A  fev 
days  after  the  primaries. 

Q.  And  the  primaries  were  on  what  date? — A.  The  15th  day  o: 
September. 

Q.  And  can  you  say  how  many  days? — A.  Xo;  I  think  it  wa: 
within  a  week. 

Q„  Was  it  before  or  after  the  20th  of  September? — A.  Well,  ] 
can’t  tell  you  that,  Senator.  I  was  at  home  on  primary  day,  o: 
course. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  was  the  15th  of  September? — A.  Yes;  1 
was  at  home  in  Ottawa  on  primary  day;  that  was  Thursday.  Xow 
my  impression  is  that  I  left  there  the  next  day,  Friday,  and  came  U 
Chicago.  It  may  have  been  Saturday,  but  I  think  I  left  Friday  anc 
came  to  Chicago.  Xow,  I  saw  him — and  I  have  been  here  practically 
ever  since — I  saw  him  the  first  few  days  of  my  being  here. 

Senator  Heybtjrn.  Was  it  before  the  Monday  following  that  Fri 
day  that  you  saw  him  ? — A.  I  think  it  was  before  this  investigatior 
stalled,  whenever  that  was. 

Q,  It  started  on  Monday. — A.  Well,  I  think  it  was  before  that. 

Q.  It  started  on  the  20th. — A.  I  think  it  was  before  that. 

Senator  Gamble.  So  you  have  not  seen  him  since  the  20th  of  Sep 
tember? — A.  That  is- my  recollection;  my  recollection  is  I  have  no* 
seen  him.  He  telephoned  me  once  after  I  saw  him. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  633 

Q.  How  long  afterwards? — A.  I  think  the  same  day  that  I  last 
aw  him;  I  think  he  called  me  up  about  some  matter  or  some  stuff 
hat  he  wanted  me  to  speak  to  Mr.  Giblin  about;  something  of  that 

:ind. 

Senator  Heybtjrn.  From  what  point? — A.  Why,  in  town;  I  think 
lis  folks’  home,  on  the  North  Side. 

Q.  You  think  that  was  before  the  20th? — A.  Yes;  that  is  my 
•ecollection. 

Senator  Frazier.  Have  you  any  information  now,  from  his  family 
>r  otherwise,  as  to  where  he  is? — A.  I  have  not  seen  his  family. 

Q.  Well,  have  you  any  information  as  to  where  he  is? — A.  Xo. 

Q.  From  anybody? — A.  Xo. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  where  he  is? — A.  Xo. 

Senator  Paynter.  What  is  the  date  of  the  subpoena  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  20th;  that  is,  the  request  was  made  then. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  the  subpoena  was  not  issued  until  later. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  subpoena  was  issued  on  the  evening  of  the 
?9th  of  September  and  handed  to  the  Sergeant -at- Arms. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  think  any  subpoenas  were  issued  until 
he  28th,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  say  the  29th. 

Senator  Gamble.  Xo  subpoenas  were  issued  before  the  22d — I  think 
>n  the  Thursday  night  of  the  week  of  the  20th. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  this  was  issued  on  the  29th. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Browne,  I  understood  you  to  say  yesterday 
hat  the  testimony  of  these  gentlemen,  with  reference  to  having  re¬ 
ceived  money  from  you,  was,  in  your  judgment,  occasioned  by  some 
iractice  that  had  never  been  equaled  in  the  State  of  Illinois ;  is  that 
correct? — A.  Substantially. 

Q.  Yes;  you  know,  do  you  not,  from  your  attendance  upon  the  two 
rials  in  the  criminal  court  of  Cook  County,  that  Mr.  Link  and  Mr. 
leckemeyer  denied  having  met  Wilson  in  St.  Louis  in  July  at  all 
>efore  the  grand  jury? — A.  Xo;  I  do  not  know  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Didn't  you  hear  that  testimony? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  that  that  was  the  reason  why  they  were  indicted 
!or  perjury? — A.  Xo. 

Q.  You  don’t? — A.  Xo. 

Q.  And  you  never  ascertained  that  fact? — A.  I  do  not  think;  it 
vas  not  my  understanding  that  your  statement  is  correct. 

Q.  You  know  what  Link  testified  to  here  and  Mr.  Beckemeyer — 
hat  they  had  denied  having  met  Wilson  in  St.  Louis  before  the 
rrand  jury,  and  that  Wilson  was  then  put  upon  the  stand  before  the 
rrand  jury  and  testified  that  he  had  met  them  in  St.  Louis;  is  not 
hat  the  fact  ? — A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Well,  isn’t  it  the  fact,  as  you  heard  it  testified  to  both  here  and 
n  the  criminal  court  of  Cook  County? — A.  I  did  not  hear  it  testified 
o  here  at  all.  I  have  not  been  in  this  room  until  T  was  called. 

Q.  Well,  from  the  transcript? — A.  I  have  not  read  the  transcript. 

Q.  And  no  one  reported  any  of  the  proceedings  here  to  you? — A. 
[  have  not  read  the  transcript,  neither  have  I  read  the  testimony  com¬ 
pete  of  any  witness  in  the  paper,  and  neither  has  anybody  rehearsed 
t  to  me. 

Q.  Well,  then,  I  will  ask  you  if  you  did  not  hear  the  testimony 
'iven  before  the  criminal  court  of  Cook  County? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


634  INVESTIGATION  OP  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Now,  don’t  you  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  from  statements  made 
by  Link  and  other  testimony — and  Beckemeyer — under  oath  in  your 
cases,  and  other  testimony  there  adduced,  that  Link  and  Beckemeyer, 
when  first  called  before  the  grand  jury,  both  denied  having  met  Wil¬ 
son  in  St.  Louis  in  1909,  in  the  month  of  July? — A.  No;  I  do  not 
know  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  You  do  not.  Then,  if  the}^  testified  to  that  fact,  why,  you  think 
they  are  falsifying  in  that  fact? — A.  No;  I  do  not  think  anything  of 
the  kind. 

Q.  Well,  was  any  unholy  measure  or  process  used  to  make  Becke- 
meyer  say  that  he  met  you  at  Starving  Rock,  just  before  the  meeting 
at  St.  Louis? — A.  No;  not  that  I  know  of;  I  do  not  know  what  was 
used  upon  him.  I  simply  got  the  testimony  that  came  out  upon  the 
two  trials.  Beckemeyer  made  admissions  and  statements  and  ad¬ 
missions  to  the  officer  that  was  with  him,  and  I  know  just  what  peo¬ 
ple  know  that  have  followed  the  case  along. 

Q.  Well,  now,  did  you  meet  Beckemeyer  at  Starving  Rock? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  ? — A.  Oh,  I  can  not  tell  you  that,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Q,  It  was  a  little  while  before  your  meeting  with  him  in  June? — 
A.  It  was  before  that. 

Q.  It  was  between  the  4th  and  the  21st  of  June? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Wasn’t  it  on  the  12th  of  June? — A.  I  can  not  tell  vou. 

Q.  Was  it  about  the  12th  of  June? — A.  I  can  not  tell  you. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  this  committee  whether  or  not  it  was  about  a  week 
after  the  general  session? — A.  No;  I  can  not  tell  you  that. 

Q.  The  best  you  can  do  is  to  tell  this  committee  that  it  was  between 
the  4th  and  the  21st  of  June? — A.  That  is  the  best  I  can  do  now,  be¬ 
cause  I  have  not  tried  in  any  way  to  fix  the  precise  date. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  if  you  met  Beckemeyer  at  Starving  Rock,  between 
the  4th  and  21st  of  June,  it  was  still  necessary  for  you  to  see  him  in 
St.  Louis  on  the  21st  of  June? — A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was 
necessary  or  not. 

Q.  Yon  had  just  left  him  after  a  five  months’  session? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  again  met  him  at  Starving  Rock  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  you  wanted  to  see  him  again  at  St.  Louis? — A.  I  did 
see  him  again. 

Q.  And  notified  him  or  caused  him  to  be  notified  to  be  there? — A.  I 

presume  so. 

Q.  Now,  this  “  shame  ”  you  have  spoken  of,  this  “  crying  shame  ”  of 
Illinois,  with  reference  to  the  testimony  of  Beckemeyer  and  Link,  that 
also  applies  to  Holstlaw,  does  it? — A.  I  do  not  know  anything  about 
Mr.  Holstlaw ;  I  have  no  acquaintance  whatever  with  Mr.  Holstlaw, 
I  know  nothing  about  his  matters. 

Q.  And  you  don’t  know  whether  his  statement  that  he  was  paid 
$2,500  was  also  the  result  of  this  method  that  you  characterized  here 
or  not? — A.  I  would  not  assume  it  was  the  result  of  such  methods, 
because  such  methods  do  not  obtain  outside  of  Cook  County. 

Q.  Then  if  Mr.  Holstlaw  testified  that  he  received  money  for  vot¬ 
ing  for  William  Lorimer,  you  would  not  characterize  that  as  having 
been  obtained  bv  reason  of  this  improper  or  unholy  method? — A.  I 
am  not  in  the  habit  of  characterizing  anything  that  I  know  nothing 
about. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  635 

Q.  Then  you  would  not  characterize  it  at  all,  would  you? — A. 
rhy,  I  have  not. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  I  will  ask  you  if,  on  or  about  the  last  day  of  the 
rimaries,  you  did  not  make  a  speech  in  the  twenty-sixth  ward  for  Mr. 
rilson,  or  on  Mr.  Wilson’s  behalf,  or  in  furtherance  of  his  can- 
idacy? — A.  Which  do  you  mean? 

Q.  Either  one  of  them. — A.  I  made  a  speech  there. 

Q.  And  you  spoke  in  furtherance  of  his  candidacy,  did  you  not? — 
L.  I  spoke  at  the  request  of  his  friends,  who  had  the  idea  that  I 
Duld  do  some  good  for  him.  I  told  him  I  did  not  think  I  could. 

Q.  You  spoke  in  furtherance  of  his  candidacy? — A.  I  spoke  before 
meeting  in  his  ward. 

Q.  And  at  the  request  of  his  friends? — A.  Yes;  and  himself. 

Q,  And  you  said,  did  you  not,  that  whatever  Wilson  did,  or  words 
)  that  effect,  he  did  at  your  direction  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  And  not  to  blame  him — Wilson? — A.  No. 

Q.  Or  nothing  to  that  effect? — A.  Yes.  Not  that,  but  something 
Ise ;  I  can  tell  you  if  you  wTant  to  know. 

Q.  I  do  not  care  for  your  whole  speech,  but  I  want  to  know  what 
ou  said  on  that  particular  subject,  if  you  can  tell  us. — A.  I  said  I 
dt  bad  to  see  that  this  matter  should  be  affecting  Wilson  with  his 
riends,  as  it  was,  because  what  he  did,  I  felt,  in  a  measure,  I  was  to 
lame  for;  that  his  trip  to  St.  Louis  was  taken  in  my  interest,  in  my 
ehalf,  and  for  me,  and  therefore  I  felt  that  in  serving  me,  in  doing 
;>r  me,  he  had  brought  this  upon  himself,  and  I  felt  grieved  very 
mch.  That  was  it,  in  substance. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected  on  the  26th  day  of  July — ■ 
mean  the  26th  day  of  May — 1909  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  first  ballot  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  only  ballot  taken  on  that  day? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  was  considerable  excitement,  suppressed  or  otherwise,  in 
le  assembly  hall  that  day,  was  there? — A.  Why,  there  was  no  un- 
sual  commotion  or  disturbance.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  sup- 
ressed  interest.  There  was  a  very  large  concourse  of  people  there, 
oth  in  the  galleries  and  wherever  they  could  get  in,  but  as  far  as 
lere  being  any  excitement,  disturbance,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  I 
o  not  think  there  was  as  much  as  there  was  a  number  of  times  that 
could  tell  you  of  during  the  session. 

Q.  Why,  Mr.  Browne,  weren't  there  some  very  virulent  speeches 
lade  that  day? — A.  Why,  during  the  course  of  that  session  there 
ere  instances  that  were  much  more  virulent  than  anything  that  took 
lace  that  day. 

Q.  I  am  only  asking  about  that  day? — A.  Oh,  yes;  there  were  some 
npleasant  instances. 

Q.  You  even  asked  a  man  to  go  out  with  you? — A.  No;  I  did  not 

ay  that. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  say  one  of  the  two  would  not  return? — A.  I  didn’t 
ay,  “one  of  the  two  would  not  return.”  No;  I  didn’t  say  that.  I 
nil  tell  you  what  I  did  say. 

Q.  Not  a  speech,  but  just  tell  us. — A.  I  arose  to  a  question  of  per- 
anal  privilege,  and  said  that  during  my  remarks  to  this  gentleman, 
hat  I  hoped  that  he  did  not  intend  what  could  easily  be  implied  from 
ertain  things  he  said;  I  trusted  that  he  did  not,  but  if  he  did,  if  he 
/ould  repeat  them  to  me  at  some  other  place,  that  probably  neither 


636  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER. 


one  of  us  would  repeat  those  remarks  again.  I  said  something  t 
that  effect. 

Q.  Neither  one  of  you? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  mean  one? — A.  I  said  neither  one  of  us  would  ever  use 
that  kind  of  language. 

Q.  Did  you  think  both  of  you  would  be  taken  away? — A.  I  am 
trying  to  tell  you  what  I  said. 

Q.  And  that  was  occasioned  by  the  remark  that  you  made  in  youi 
speech  that  you  could  not  cash  hopes  and  could  not  cash  fancies  or 
dreams,  and  English  then  replied  that  you  might  be  able  to  cash 
votes;  isn’t  that  it? — A.  I  do  not  know  what  his  remarks  were  oc-*; 
casioned  by,  I  am  sure. 

Q„  You  do  not  remember  that  part  of  your  speech? — A.  I  remem¬ 
ber  that  certain  expression. 

Q.  The  expression  as  I  have  detailed  it? — A.  “You  can  not  cash 
dreams.” 

Q.  And  you  do  not  know  what  reply  he  made  that  entailed  youi 
invitation  to  go  out  ? — A.  I  did  not  say  that  to  you. 

Q.  What  remark  did  he  make  in  reply  ? — A.  I  can  not  tell  you  now 
the  language  that  he  used,  but  it  was  language  which,  in  the  ordinary 
acceptation  and  interpretation  of  it,  would  impute  wrongdoing  and 
dishonesty  to  members  upon  the  floor  of  the  house. 

Q.  Mr."  Browne,  immediately  before  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer. 
or  immediately  thereafter,  did  you  offer  to  pay  or  did  you  pay  any¬ 
one  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  or  by  reason  of  his  having  voted 
for  Mr.  Lorimer,  or  did  you  give  anyone  any  money,  promise,  or 
reward  of  any  kind,  by  reason  of  that  fact? — A.  Will  you  please 
read  that  question? 

(Question  read.) 

A.  Absolutely  no ;  with  this  exception :  I  did  state  to  a  number  of 
the  members  of  the  Browne  faction,  and  I  could  not  tell  you  who,  in 
canvassing  the  situation  for  their  votes  for  Lorimer,  that  I  thought 
that  even  from  a  selfish  standpoint  it  might  be  an  advisable  move, 
because  the  Democrats  would  have  an  opportunity  of  getting  some 
positions  for  themselves  or  their  friends  that  they  would  not  other -j  I 
wise  get.  That  is  all. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  any  talk  about  any  money  being  paid  for 
votes  for  Mr.  Lorimer  on  the  24th  or  the  25th  or  the  26th  or  the  27th 
of  May,  1909,  did  you  ? — A.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Austrian,  in  any  capital, 
in  times  like  that,  there  are  always  loose  remarks  floating  around 
along  these  lines.  If  I  did  hear  anything  of  that  kind,  either  it  was 
not  serious  at  all  or  I  did  not  attribute  to  it  anything  sufficiently 
serious,  so  that  I  now  have  any  recollection  of  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question.  I  understood  you 
to  say  that  the  record  of  the  proceedings  before  the  committee  were 
incorrect.  I  desire  to  know  whether  you  read  from  the  official  work 
of  the  stenographer? — A.  I  owe  the  committee  and  chairman  an 
apology  for  the  remark,  and  also  the  official  stenographer,  because  1 
presume  that  the  transcript  that  I  got  was  from  our  private  stenog¬ 
rapher  here,  the  ones  that  have  been  employed  by  us,  or  by  people 
in  this  matter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  “  Us  ”  will  do. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  637 

Senator  Burrows.  But  you  did  not  read  from  the  official  record  ? — 
A.  No. 

Q.  Of  which  you  said  that  the  record  was  incorrect? — A.  No;  and 
I  judge  that  the  inaccuracies  that  I  spoke  of  were  probably  not  inac¬ 
curacies  of  the  shorthand  notes,  but  simply  in  the  transcription. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  just  want  to  ask  one  question  that  I  forgot.  Did 
you  contribute  to  Mike  Link’s  campaign  fund  in  1909,  June  or  July, 
1909,  Mr.  Browne? — A.  No,  sir;  but  I  would  have  been  glad  to  if  he 
asked  me  and  if  I  had  any  finances  at  the  time  to  do  it  with. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  do  it? — A.  No. 

Q.  Whether  you  would  have  been  glad,  you  did  not  do  it? — A.  No; 
I  did  not. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  desire  to  ask  a  question.  In  response  to  nearly 
the  last  question  asked  by  counsel  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you 
did  say  to  some  one  and  those  who  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  or  whom 
you  solicited  to  vote  for  him,  that  it  would  be  to  their  advantage  to 
do  so  in  the  way  of  patronage.  I  am  merely  getting  at  the  effect 
of  your  statement.  Did  you  refer  to  favors  that  might  be  granted 
from  you  or  favors  that  might  be  granted  or  procured  from  Mr.  Lor- 
iiner? — A.  Why,  I  did  not  make  it  in  exactly  that  way,  if  you  will 
pardon  me,  Senator.  I  stated  to  them,  from  a  selfish  standpoint,  that 
it  might  be  of  advantage  to  the  Democrats  to  do  it  at  that  time,  to 
elect  Senator  Lorimer,  because  it  would  give  them  an  opportunity 
of  getting  them  positions  or  places  there  for  themselves  or  their 
friends  that  they  otherwise  would  not  have. 

Q.  From  whom? — A.  I  referred  especially  to  Senator  Lorimer,  of 
course.  I  knewT  of  no  other  w7ay  that  it  would  be  possible  to  benefit, 
and  I  had  nothing  definite  in  view,  other  than  the  gratitude  that 
usually  comes  from  a  man  wTho  is  elected. 

Senator  Gamble.  You  had  no  direct  assurance  from  Senator  Lori¬ 
mer? — A.  No;  I  never  asked  any,  I  never  asked  any — that  Avas  not 
Avith  me,  and  it  was  not  with  anyone  of  the  members  that  I  talked 
with,  the  moving  cause  of  the  Democrats  A7oting  for  Senator  Lorimer, 
but  it  was  a  very  small  consideration,  if  any. 

Q.  Did  you  give  any  assurances  of  places  or  positions  to  any  of 
the  members  Avho  would  vote  for  him,  or  did  you  mean  it  of  advan¬ 
tage,  as  you  stated  in  your  testimony,  to  the  party  as  a  Avhole? — A. 
Generally,  generally. 

Q.  Generally  ? — A.  And  the  best  proof,  Senator,  that  I  had  noth¬ 
ing  definite  in  view,  was  the  fact  that  I  could  not  get  a  job  for  White 
after  the  session  closed  until  clear  down  to  November,  and  then  only 
a  small  one. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  then  you  did  not  get  that? — A.  Well,  I  got 
it,  but  it  was  not  accepted. 

Q.  You  thought  you  got  it,  but  you  did  not? — A.  I  never  could 
agree  with  you,  Judge  Hanecy,  upon  anything. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Did  you  desire  to  examine,  Judge? 

Senator  Johnston.  A  federal  position? — A.  Well,  no;  this  Avas 
a  position  under  Mr.  Monaghan,  in  the  county  building.  Monaghan 
is — let  us  see— — 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  is  the  man  that  has  one  of  the  offices  in  the 
county  building? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  an  appointLe  position;  appointed — an  ap¬ 
pointive  officeholder,  appointed  by  the  county  clerk. 


638  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  record  shows. 

Senator  Johnston.  It  is  not  federal. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  no;  it  is  county. 

Senator  Gamble.  What  are  the  politics  of  Mr.  Monaghan? 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  is  a  Republican. 

Senator  Gamble.  A  Republican. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  have  you  any  inquiries  to  make? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  proceed  now. 

Senator  Burrows.  Are  you  through  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am;  yes,  sir. 

The  Witness.  I  would  like  to  state,  if  the  Senators  would  can 
the  moving  cause  with  me,  or  with  those  I  talked  with,  the  chid 
moving  cause  of  the  Democrats  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer,  but 
do  not  care  to  press  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  .1  will  ask  you  to  do  it  now. — A.  The  legi§ 
lature  had  been  in  session  since,  I  think,  the  5th  day  of  January 
We  had  voted  for  Senator,  I  doirt  know  how  many  different  times 
There  had  been  a  determined  effort,  a  persistently  determined  effor 
to  elect  Senator  Hopkins.  Senator  Hopkins  was  not  able  to  muste 
enough  votes  at  any  time  to  elect  himself.  He  came  very  near  it  a 
first,  I  think;  that  is,  once  he  came  near  it,  and  there  was  a  disposi 
tion  upon  the  part  of  quite  a  good  many  Democrats  to  oppose  him 
for  instance,  Mr.  Alschuler,  for  personal  reasons,  was  bitterly  op 
posed  to  him,  and  I  will  confess  now,  the  only — I  think  Mr.  A1 
schuler  and  I  were  personal  friends — the  only  way  I  finally  secure< 
his  support  for  me,  for  minority  leader,  was  by  assuring  him,  at  hi 
insistence,  that  I  would  do  nothing  at  any  time  to  assist  in  the  elec 
tion  of  Senator  Hopkins — the  reelection  of  Senator  Hopkins.  I  di< 
tell  him  that  I  would  not.  I  do  not  think  that  George  Alschule 
would  have  been  for  anybody  that  would  not  have  said  that.  Nov 
the  situation  became  desperate.  Other  matters,  legislative  bills,  othe 
matters  of  importance  to  the  people  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  al 
parts  of  it,  were  pending.  No  business  could  be  transacted,  and  mat 
ters  were  in  a  terrible  and  deplorable  condition  in  the  State  of  Illi 
nois,  I  believe  all  over  the  State ;  the  people  of  the  State  of  Illinoi 
were  chiding  and  complaining  every  time  we  got  home  at  the  end  o 
the  week ;  what  we  were  doing,  how  long  we  were  going  to  stay  an( 
spend  the  State's  money  in  that  wav. 

We  recognized  the  fact  that  the  election  of  a  Democratic  Senato 
was  an  absolute  impossibility ;  there  was  not  any — there  was  not  evei 
one  chance  in  a  million ;  there  wasn't  any  chance  at  all ;  that  was  ou 
of  the  question,  so  that  it  was  a  question  of  the  election  of  a  Repub 
lican.  That  the  Republicans  could  not  do  among  themselves  nn( 
would  not  have  been  able  to  do  up  to  this  time.  They  were  in  tha 
condition.  The  majority  of  the  Democrats  were  favorable  to  Lori 
mer,  a  good  many  of  them;  some  of  them  knew  him  personally 
were  very  friendly  to  him,  especially  the  Chicago  Democrats,  ver 
friendly  to  him,  indeed,  and  others  were  influenced  by  them,  s< 
that  there  was  a  very  large  sentiment,  as  soon  as.  his  name  wa; 
broached  at  all,  a  very  large  sentiment  for  William  Lorimer.  Ii 
fact,  the  Democrats  considered  him  as  being  more  Democratic  in  * 
good  many  of  his  views  than  a  great  many  other  Republicans  tha 
they  knew.  For  these  reasons,  and  to  end  the  strife,  and  I  think  a 
that  time  that  the  Democrats  would  have  voted  for  any  good,  sub 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  639 

stantial,  capable,  popular  Republican ;  I  think  they  would  have  done 
it;  I  think  their  constituencies,  most  of  them,  would  have  approved 
of  it.  I  know  I  was  urged  by  my  constituents  everywhere  to  do  it ; 
received  letters  until  I  got  tired  of  it  to  do  something  of  that  kind. 
Now,  it  was  to  relieve  that  condition,  to  get  out  of  that  condition,  and 
to  get  the  matter  out  of  the  way  that  the  Democrats  voted  as  they  did, 
a  friendship  for  Senator  Lorimer  among  them.  And  I  will  add  this, 
I  think  there  was  a  little  method  in  their  madness.  I  think  they  felt 
that  the  Democrats  felt,  wickedly,  of  course,  that  it  might  be  the 
means  of  splitting  the  Republican  party  in  Illinois,  so  that  they 
would  have  a  better  chance.  I  think  that  was  the  moving  cause. 

Examination  by  J udge  Hanecy  : 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  I  call  your  attention  to  your  letter  of  June  9  and 
Mr.  White’s  letter  to  you  in  answer  to  that;  have  you  that  letter?— 
A.  I  have  not  that  letter. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  it  is  ? — A.  It  was  written ;  no. 

Q.  Have  you  made  a  search  for  it? — A.  I  have. 

Q.  Have  you  been  able  to  find  it? — A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Is  it  within  your  power  to  produce  it  now? — A.  It  is  not.  I 
think  it  was  probably  destroyed,  or  it  is  lost. 

Q.  What  was  it? — A.  It  was  a  letter,  that  you  will  see  by  reasons 
of  my  letter  of  the  9th,  came  to  me  from  O’Fallon,  Ilk,  the  home  of 
Charles  A.  White,  and  must  have  been  written  on  the  6th  day  of 
June,  or  two  weeks — two  days  after  we  left  Springfield.  The  letter 
urged  upon  mo— I  remember  the  substance — urged  upon  me  the  prop¬ 
osition  of  keeping  in  mind  the  securing  for  White  a  job  or  position 
or  place,  if  I  could,  and  also  a  desire  to  talk  with  me  or  advise  with 
me  about  embarking  in  some  small  business  venture  of  some  kind. 

Q.  Did  that  letter  of  June  9.  1909,  to  Charles  A.  White  refer  to 
payment  of  money,  or  to  what  did  it  refer  ?— A.  No  letter  that  Charles 
White  wrote  me  down  to  the  one  on  the  8th  day  of  September,  1910, 
when  he  asked  me  for  a  loan,  referred  to  any  money. 

Q.  Was  White’s  visit  to  you,  referred  to  in  that  letter,  with  relation 
to  the  payment  of  any  money  by  you  to  him? — A.  Why,  no:  no. 

Q.  Nothing  of  that  kind? — A.  No. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  take  your  attention  to  the  letter  of  June  13. _ A. 

The  letter  that  that  was  an  answer  to,  I  have  also  lost,  or  it  is  de¬ 
stroyed.  I  made  no  effort  to  keep  any  of  the  correspondence,  and 
how  I  happened  to  keep  such  as  I  did,  I  do  not  know.  Private  mat¬ 
ters  of  that  kind,  or  matters  that  are  not  strictly  business,  I  may  be 
careless,  but  I  never  made  any  practice  of  keeping  them. 

Q.  Have  you  searched  for  that  letter? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Is  it  wdthin  your  power  to  produce  it? — A.  No. 

Q.  What  was  that  letter? — A.  That  letter  was  also  with  reference 
to  securing  a  job  or  position  for  him,  and  in  reference  to  meeting 
me  relative  thereto,  or  talking  it  over  with  me. 

Q.  Did  it  refer  in  any  way,  or  was  it  intended  to  refer  to  the 

Sayment  of  any  money  by  vou,  or  anybody  for  you,  to  White? — A. 
othing  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  How  can  he  tell  what  it  was  intended 
to  refer  to,  when  it  was  not  his  letter. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Browne,  I  next  direct  your  attention  to  Mr. 
White’s  testimony,  in  which  he  says  you  gave  him  a  one-hundred- 


640  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

dollar  bill  about  the  end  of  the  original  session  of  the  forty-sixth: 
general  assembly,  at  the  hotel  desk.  "Will  you  explain  that?  A. 
No  such  transaction  as  that  ever  occurred  in  the  world.  I  did  notj 
give  Mr.  White  any  money  at  the  close  of  the  session  or  at  any  time 
during  the  session,  either  in  the  way  of  a  one-hundred-dollar  bill  oi 
any  other  bill.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  was  borrowing  money  my  sell 
from  the  hotel  people  during  the  last  two  weeks  that  I  was  in  Spring- 
field — borrowed  it  in  small  amounts— I  think,  amounting  to  $90  in  alii 

Q.  An  aggregate  of  $90? — A.  lees.  I  paid  it  up  before  I  left 
with  my  bill,  not  by  check,  either,  and  I  remember  now  why  I  did  noil 
draw  a  check.  It  was  because  I  felt  I  had  overdrawn  my  accounl 
at  home. 

Q.  Mr.  White  said  that  bill  had  certain  marks  on  it,  and  after  h( 
looked  at  it  and  found  the  marks,  he  took  it  back  to  you,  he  did  no 
care  to  pass  it.  Did  anything  of  that  kind. occur ?—  A.  No,  sir;  noth 
ing  of  the  kind. 

Q.  And  then  he  said  that  you  took  it  to  the  desk— took  it  away 
from  him,  or  took  it  to  the  desk,  or  took  it  some  place,  and  had  il 
changed  to  some  bills,  and  then  gave  him  the  same  bills.  Did  any 
thing  like  that  take  place?— A.  Nothing  at  all,  and  I  would  like  t( : 
say  that  that  part  of  the  hotel  desk  in  the  Hotel  St.  Nicholas,  a 
Springfield,  where  the  cashier’s  window  is,  is  encircled  by  a  netting 
partially,  at  least,  so  that  anybody  standing  out  near  the  wash  roon  » 
or  to  the  side,  could  see  anybody  inside  of  that  cashier’s  place,  or  a 
the  window,  and  could  see  what' they  did,  and  see  who  it  was,  and  al 
about  it. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  take  your  attention  to  the  24th  of  May.  the  nigh 
of  the  24th.  You  have'related  generally,  and  probably  substantially 
or  fully,  what  took  place,  with  reference  to  White’s  statement  tha  > 
he  talked  with  you.  Did  Beckemeyer  go  to  your  room  that  night  ?- 
A.  Judge  Hanecy,  I  am  not  sure ;  he  may  have  come  there,  as  I  hav< 
stated  here,  I  did  not  go  to  my  room  until  late  that  night.  He  ma) 
have  come  among  others ;  it  is  possible  that  he  did.  I  have  no  recol 
lection  of  it. 

Q.  And  you  have  told  about  White  ? — A.  I  have  told  about  White 

Q.  Yes;  about  your  interview,  if  you  had  any,  with  White  tha 
night? — A.  Well,*!  say  I  have  no  recollection  of  his  coming  to  my 
room  at  all  that  night,  although  he  may  have,  as  others  did. 

Q.  Yes. — A.  But  I  do  want  to  sav  that  the  conversation  that  h< 
first  referred  to  as  having  taken  place  in  my  room  on  the  24th  of  May 
the  night  of  the  24tli  of  May,  or  that  conversation  at  any  other  tim« 
or  place  never  took  place,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  anywhere. 

Q.  Mr.  Austrian  asked  you  this  morning  if  the  interview,  or  th 
alleged  interview,  between  you  and  TV  bite  on  the  night  of  the  24tl 
of  May  was  not  the  inception  or  origin  of  the  prosecution  in  th 
criminal  court  of  Cook  County  in  the  cases  of  People  v.  Browne,  and! 
you  said  that  was  an  important  incident  or  an  important  event  ?— 
A.  It  is  an  important  incident  in  his  story.  1 

Q.  Now,  that  is  merely  preliminary.  Did  you  hear  Mr.  White* 
testimony  in  the  two  Browne  trials  in  the  criminal  court  ? — A.  Yes 
sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear — what  did  he  say,  if  anything-— who  was  in  hi 
room  on  that  night  wdien  he  claims  you  went  to  his  room? — A.  H* 
said  that  I  came  to  his  room  that  night.  At  first  he  said  about  1 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  641 

• 

o’clock;  in  the  second  trial  he  said  between  the  hours  of  11  and  2,  as 
I  now  recollect;  that  the  two  Yarborough  boys,  Otis  and  Sidney,  were 
in  his  room,  undressed  and  in  bed;  that  he  was  there,  but  not  un¬ 
dressed;  that  I  came  in  and  made  some  joking  remark  or  jocular  re¬ 
mark  about  three  in  a  room,  and  then  said  to  him  that  I  wanted  to 
see  him  down  in  my  room;  I  left  and  he  came  down  afterwards. 
That  was  his  testimony. 

Q.  Did  he  say  that  was  the  time — what  did  he  say  as  to  whether  or 
not  that  was  the  time  the  arrangement  or  agreement  or  understand¬ 
ing  was  had  between  you  and  him  that  he  was  to  vote  for  William 
Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  ? — A.  He  said - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Where? 

Judge  Hanecy.  On  the  evening  of  the  24th  of  May. 

Mr.  Austrian.  At  what  place? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  asking  him  to  tell. 

A.  He  said,  in  his  testimony  upon  both  trials,  that  upon  that 
evening,  May  24,  1909,  the  first” trial,  as  I  say,  about  11  o’clock;  the 
second  trial  he  fixed  it  between  11  and  2;  that  I  first  called  him  up 
by  telephone,  telling  him  I  was  coming  up  to  see  him ;  that  shortly 
I  did  come  to  his  room  and  found  what  I  have  stated  to  you  and  the 
people  that  I  have  stated ;  that  I  then  left  and  went  down  to  my  room 
and  he  came  down  to  my  room  almost  immediately;  and  that  there 
and  then  between  us  took  place  the  conversation  that  he  describes,  in 
which  ne  charges  that  I  solicited  him  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  and 
promised  him  consideration,  etc. 

Q.  Promised  him  $1,000? — A.  Tes.  Well,  I  do  not  think  he  said — 
I  do  not  think  he  said  that  the  price  was  fixed  that  night ;  I  think  he 
said  the  price  was  fixed  the  next  day. 

Q.  TV  ell,  I  am  coming  to  that ;  that  is  merely  preliminary  to  an¬ 
other  thing.  Now,  did  these  things  take  place  that  you  have  re¬ 
ferred  to  in  this  last  answer  and  in  the  answer  preceding  that  as 
stated  by  Mr.  White? — A.  Absolutely  no;  no  single  one  of  them. 

Q.  Did  Sidney  Yarborough  and  Otis  Yarborough  testify  in  the  first 
Browne  trial? — A.  No. 

Q.  They  didn’t  attempt  to  corroborate - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  the  form  of  the  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  they  testify  at  all? — A.  No. 

Q.  In  that  case? — A.  No. 

.  Q.  In  the  second  Browne  trial  did  Sidney  or  Otis  Yarborough  tes¬ 
tify  in  the  criminal  court  of  Cook  County  in  relation  to  what  White 
bad  said  in  relation  to  your  presence  in  their  room  and  their  presence 
in  his  room  ? — A.  Both  of  them. 

Q.  Both  of  the  Yarboroughs? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Both  Sidney  and  Otis  ?— A.  Both  of  them. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  same — that  Sidney  Tl  arborough  is  the  same  Sid¬ 
ney  Yarborough  who  is  referred  to  in  the  testimony  of  Gloss  after¬ 
wards  there — (Boss  and  his  wife? — A.  The  same  Sidney  Yarborough. 

Q.  And  by  some  other  witnesses  there? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  with  him  and  Beckemeyer  in  the  hall  of  the  St. 
Nicholas  Hotel,  and  tell  them  to  go  to  bed,  etc.,  as  related  by  them? — 
Y  Yes;  but  not  that  night. 

Q.  What  night  was  that?— A.  Well,  now,  T  can  not  fix  that,  Judge 
Hanecy,  but  it  was  some  time  the  previous  week. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 41 


642  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  They  testified — well,  one  or  both  of  them  testified  that  it  was 
what  night? — A.  Why,  I  am  not  sure  whether  Beckemeyer  testified 
upon  the  first  trial  as  to  that  incident  at  all.  I  am  not  sure.  TJ  pon 
the  second  trial  they  both  testified  it  was  the  night  of  the  24th  of  May. 

Q.  The  24th  of  May  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anything  of  that  kind  take  place  on  the  24th  of  May? — 
A.  No. 

Q.  Or  the  25th  of  May?— A.  No;  they  are  mistaken. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Is  this  testimony  for  the  purpose  of  laying  the 
foundation  to  introduce  testimony  of  that  trial  ? . 

Judge  Hanecy.  No,  Senator  Heyburn;  but  it  is  to  contradict  testi¬ 
mony  these  men  gave  here. 

Senator  Heyburn.  If  these  men  testified  differently  at  some  other 
trial,  isn’t  it  a  matter  of  official  record  in  that  court  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Certainly. 

Senator  Burrows.  Senator  Johnston  says  it  was  testimony  they 
gave  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  didn’t  testify  here  at  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  are  not  bound  by  any  rule  of  law  to  prove  by 
that  record,  and  that  only  what  Beckemeyer  or  White  did  testify  to 
there.  We  can  impeach  them  by  the  testimony  as  well  as  by  the 
stenographer  who  took  it  in  his  "notes  and  transcribed  it  on  paper. 
He  was  present  in  court  and  heard  all  of  that  testimony.  I  have 
laid  the  foundation. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  do  not  know  what  the  law  in  this  State  is  as 
to  stenographers. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  law  is - 

Senator  Heyburn.  Just  a  moment.  The  law  in  some  jurisdic¬ 
tions  with  which  I  am  familiar  makes  the  notes,  the  notes  of  the  court, 
the  only  evidence  that  can  be  produced  are  what  transpired  in  court. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  have  not  any  law,  we  have  not  any  official 
reporters  in  this  State  at  all.  There  were  several  laws  passed  and 
repealed - 

Senator  Gamble.  I  do  not  understand  the  purpose  of  the  examina¬ 
tion  ;  I  do  not  understand — you  were  attempting  to  lay  the  founda¬ 
tion  to  impeach  him? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  contradicting  the  testimony  and  impeach- 
ing - 

Senator  Gamble.  It  occurred  to  me  it  would  have  been  more  com¬ 
petent  to  have  referred  to  the  direct  testimony  of  these  witnesses. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  did  not  lay  the  ground  for  impeachment;  he 
did  not  ask  any  one  of  these  witnesses  whether  they  testified  on  the 
trial. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  Yarboroughs  were  not  produced  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then  it  can  not  be  impeachment. 

Judge  Hanecy.  My  purpose  in  that  was  to  show  the  conspiracy  or 
combination  of  White  here - - 

Mr.  Austrian.  With  the  Tribune. 

Judge  Hanecy.  With  you,  if  you  prefer  it.  But  to  show  the 
scheme  of  White  to  corroborate  himself  by  introducing  incidents  or 
persons  peculiar  and  particular  friends  of  his,  he  kept  calling  on 
afterwards,  and  who  were  calling  on  him  afterwards. 

Senator  Burrows.  Bead  the  question,  please. 

The  Beporter.  There  is  no  question  pending. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  643 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge,  proceed. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  I  want  to  take  your  attention  to 
the  interview  with  White  as  he  relates  it,  or  the  alleged  interview  at 
the  Briggs  House  in  June,  when  he  claims  that  you  gave  him  $50; 
that  is  the  first  the  interview  on  the  16th,  I  think,  or  it  may  be  the 
17th;  but  go  to  the  16th;  he  claims,  I  think,  on  the  16th  you  gave 
him  $50. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  is  your  question,  Judge? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  any  such  interview  take  place  between  vou 
and  Mr.  hite  ? — A.  As  what  ? 

Q.  At  which  you  gave  him  $50,  and  told  him  that  was  part  of  his 
Lorimer  money,  and  that  you  would  give  him  the  balance  of  the 
Lorimer  money  to-morrow  ? — A.  During  the - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit  that  can  be  answered  yes  or  no.  Now,  we 
have  had  a  full  recital  of  these  conversations,  and  there  is  a  question, 
not  put  by  me,  and  if  it  is  read,  it  can  be  answered  yes  or  no,  did  anv 
such  conversation  take  place  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  propose  to  show  the  facts. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  witness  state. 

W  During  the  15th,  16th,  and  17th  days  of  June,  the  time  referred 
to  by  the  witness,  and  the  only  days  in' June  that  we  were  together 
at  the  Briggs  House  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  he  was  at  no  time  in  any 
room  where  I  was,  and  the  only  places  that  he  saw  me  at  all  were  in 
the  lobby  in  the  hall  or  possibly  in  the  bar  room.  I  had  no  such  con¬ 
versation  as  he  refers  to,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  I  neither  gave 
him  $50  nor  any  other  sum  until  the  day  he  was  going  away,  the  17th 
about  noon.  '  'J 

Q.  Now,  I  will  come  to  that  later. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now,  just  a  moment.  Now,  I  want  to  submit  to 
the  chair  that  “  I  had  no  conversation  with  him,  in  whole  or  in  part,” 
is  an  answer  to  that  question,  without  a  speech.  Now,  the  witness 
has  made  a  very  long  answer.  I  think  he  answered  by  the  four  or 
five  words:  “I  had  no  such  conversation,  in  whole  or  in  "part.”  Now. 
if  we  are  going  to  have  a  long  review  of  everything  that  did  take 
place  in  answering  such  questions - 

Judge  HxIXecy.  I  submit  that  is  not  a  proper  method  of  lecturing 
this  witness. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  speaking  to  the  chairman — submitting  it  to 
:he  chairman. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  propose  not  only  to  cover  the  particular  place 
^  any  other  place  in  any  room,  but  any  other  place,  and  show  he 
lid  not  give  it  to  him  in  any  place,  and  the  only  place  he  met  him  was 
in  the  hallway,  and  I  propose  to  call  another  witness  to  prove  the 
conversation  that  took  place  between  Browne  and  White  on  the  17th. 

Mr.  Burrows.  The  chair  thinks  the  answer  is  proper. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  pay  Mr.  White  $50  on  the  16th  and  say 
o  him,  *  This  is  part  of  your  Lorimer  money,  and  the  balance  I  will 

lay  you  to-morrow,”  or  that  in  substance  or  anything  like  it  ? _ A 

STo,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  meet  Mr.  White  on  the  17th  of  June,  1909,  at  the 
dnggs  House?— A.  1  remember  of  meeting— I  remember  of  distinctly 
nectmg  him  once;  I  may  have  met  him  more  times,  but  I  have  no 
ndependent  recollection  of  more  than  the  once  on  that  dav. 

Q.  That  was  the  17th  ?— A.  Yes. 


644  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Where  did  you  meet  him  then  ? — A.  In  the  lobby  of  the  Briggs 
House  there  are  two  large  posts  or  pillars;  I  met  him  in  front  of  the 
front  one,  toward  the  front  door,  out  quite  a  ways  from  the  desk  and 
really  way  out  toward  the  front  door. 

Q.  On  the  17th  of  June,  1909,  at  the  Briggs  House,  or  any  place 
else,  did  you  give  to  Charles  A.  White  $850  in  $50  bills  or  in  any 
other  denomination  and  say  to  him,  u  Here  is  the  balance  of  your 
Lorimer  money  ?  ” — A.  Absolutely,  no. 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  at  any  place  or  at  any  time — did  you  give  him 
that  amount  of  money  or  any  other  amount  of  money  at  that  place 
or  any  other  place  at  any  time  and  say,  u  This  is  the  balance  of  your 
Lorimer  money?  ” — A.  Absolutely,  no. 

Q.  On  the  17th  of  June  did  you  have  a  talk  with  him? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  With  Mr.  White  in  the  lobby  of  the  Briggs  House?— A.  It 
was  the  day,  Judge  Hanecy,  that  he  was  going  away,  and  I  assume  it 
was  the  17th,  because  the  hotel  register  shows  it.  Of  course  I  have 
no  independent  recollection  of  its  being  the  17th. 

Q.  Now,  what  took  place  between  you  and  Mr.  White  on  that 
day? — A.  I  said  I  was  talking  with  some  friends.  Mr.  White — it 
was  about  noon,  around  about  noon ;  it  may  have  been  before  that 
some  time  or  it  may  have  been  after;  that  is  as  near  as  I  can  fix  it — • 
Mr.  White  came  up  to  me  and  says,  “  Lee,  I  am  going  home  to-day. 
I  says,  “  Is  that  so,”  or  something  of  that  kind,  and  wished  him  a 
safe  journey.  He  says,  “  I  want  to  see  }mu  after  a  little  bit.”  I  says, 
“  You  can  just  as  well  see  me  now,”  and  I  stepped  aside  with  him 
possibly  as  far  as  from  him  to  the  Senator’s  chair  [indicating]. 

Q.  About  5  or  6  feet? — A.  Well,  yes;  I  should  say  6  feet — a  couple 
of  steps.  He  said,  “  Can  you  let  me" have  a  little  money?  ”•  I  am  not 
sure  whether  he  said  also  at  the  time,  “  I  am  a  little  shy,”  or  “A  little 
hard  up,”  I  can  not  recollect,  but  I  do  recollect  just  what  I  am  telling; 
there  may  have  been  a  little  more.  I  said,  “  How  much  do  you 
want?  ”  and  he  told  me.  Now,  whether  he  said  $25  or  $30  I  can  not 
tell  you,  but  it  was  a  small  amount,  less  than  $50,  and  I  said  “  Yes.” 
I  put  my  hand  down  in  my  pocket,  my  left-hand  pocket,  and  pulled 
out  a  small  roll  of  paper  money  I  had;  I  recollect  I  had  less  than 
$100  with  me ;  that  is  my  recollection  now.  I  pulled  it.  out  and 
counted  off  either  $25  or  $30;  whatever  he  asked  for  I  gave  it  to  him. 
He  folded  it  up  and  put  it  together  and  put  it  in  his  pocket.  I  think 
that  he  shook  hands  with  me,  at  least  he  bid  me  good-bye — I  think  he 
shook  hands  with  me — turned,  and  walked  away.  Now,  that  is  the 
last  that  I  saw  of  him. 

Q.  Was  that  in  the  open  lobby,  so  any  one  there  could  see  what  took 
place? — A.  It  was  there  in  the  open  lobby  within  twenty  feet  of  the 
clerk’s  desk,  a  few  feet  in  front  of  the  big  pillar,  the  front  one  of  the 
two  big  pillars,  there  in  plain  view  of  everybody  in  the  lobby  as  every¬ 
thing  else  is  in  view  in  the  lobby. 

Q.  Mr.  White  told  about  several  boat  trips,  and  you  have  referred 
to  them.  Who  paid  the  expenses  of  those  trips,  the  trips  that  White 
was  a  member  of  the  party? — A.  Oh,  I  presume  that  Mr.  Zentner  and 
Mr.  White  spent  some  little  money,,  a  drink  now  and  then,  or  some¬ 
thing  of  that  kind,  but  I  paid  the  bills;  I  paid  the  expenses. 

Q.  Who  paid  the  fares  of  White  and  his  expenses? — A.  That  is  my 
recollection  that  I  paid  all  fares. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  645 

O.  How  long  did  these  trips  take;  I  do  not  want  you  to  go  into  de¬ 
tail? — A.  Four  days. 

Q.  Four  days  altogether? — A.  Yes. 

Q,  About  what  were  the  days?— A.  Starting  on  the  15th,  Sunday, 
the  15th  day  of  August,  in  the  morning,  occupying  Sunday,  Monday, 
going  back  to  Chicago,  Tuesday  starting  out  again,  Tuesday  night, 
Wednesday  going  back  to  Chicago,  and  Thursday  morning;  three 
trips  consuming  four  days. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  entire  expenses  of  all  of  the  party  during  all 
those  trips? — A.  Well,  Judge  Hanecy,  that  is  pretty  hard  to  state. 

Q.  Well,  about,  I  don’t  want  it  exact? — A.  Well,  at  an  outside  esti¬ 
mate — 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object  to  an  estimate;  if  he  does  not  know  let  him 
say  so. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Give  us  the  largest  figure  you  know  it  amounted 
to  ? — A.  The  outside  estimate  could  not  have  been  $125 ;  I  think  prob¬ 
ably  a  good  deal  less  than  that. 

Q.  For  the  entire  party  ? — A.  Yes.  There  was  no  way  of  spending 
any  more. 

Q.  The  expense  of  the  trip  over  there,  the  fare,  I  think,  was  50 
cents. — A.  I  think  the  trip  to  Muskegon - 

Senator  Burrows.  You  don’t  care  about  that. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  I  don’t  care  about  that. 

Q.  I  think  you  have  explained  your  effort  to  get  Mr.  White  a  job, 
the  one  that  you  were  trying  to  get  from  Mr.  Monahan  ? — A.  I  used 
whatever  efforts  and  influence — yes,  I  used  efforts  in  every  way  I 
could,  and  whatever  influence  I  had. 

Q.  I  think  you  did  tell  of  the  conversation  between  you  and  White 
at  the  special  session? — A.  Yes. 

Q,  I  mean  the — yes,  the  first. — A.  I  would  like  to  call  your  at¬ 
tention,  however,  to  the  fact  that  you  have  omitted  to  inquire  relative 
to  the  conversation  that  he  says  he  had  with  me  in  the  St.  Nicholas 
Hotel  on  the  25th  of  May,  when  he  claims  that  I  spoke  to  him  and 
took  him  up  to  my  room  and  asked  him  what  is  the  matter  with  him. 

Q.  Won’t  you  tell  us  that  conversation? — A.  There  was  no  such 
conversation  took  place;  nothing  of  the  kind  took  place;  I  have  no 
recollection  of  it.  I  know  I  did  not  go  to  him  and  call  him  up  in  my 
room,  or  take  him  into  my  room.  If  he  was  in  my  room  on  the  25th 
he  came  voluntarily,  as  he  frequently  did. 

Q.  If  he  got  there,  if  he  did  get  there,  did  you  have  such  a  con¬ 
versation  as  he  related? — A.  No;  neither  then  or  any  other  time. 

Q.  Mr.  White  testified  that  you  and  he  talked  over  the  Belleville 
letter,  the  letter  that  you  wrote  to  the  Belleville  paper;  after  you  and 
he  talked  it  over  fully,  he  wrote  it  out  and  then  took  it  to  you  and 
you  made  certain  corrections  and  he  then  rewrote  the  letter  as  cor¬ 
rected  bv  you  and  sent  it  to  the  paper  and  had  it  published  in  that 
way.  Was  that  the  fact? — A.  May  I  make - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  object  to  the  form  of  the  question.  I 
say  that  Mr.  White  did  not  so  testify.  Furthermore  I  say  it  is  ab¬ 
solutely  improper  to  incorporate  the  testimony  of  the  witness  in  a 
question  like  that  and  ask  if  that  is  the  fact. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  going  to  let  him  tell  what  is  the  fact.  I 
propose  to  show  that  he  never  saw  the  letter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  him  testify,  I  have  no  objection. 


646  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Burrows.  Put  that  question  to  him  direct. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  what  I  want,  the  substance  of  it  is  what 
I  want. 

Q.  Now,  what  is  the  fact,  Mr.  Browne? — A.  I  would  like  to  make 
this  suggestion,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  it  is  probably  of  some  value : 
On  the  first  trial — the  first  one  of  my  trials,  this  letter  was  shown  to 
White  in  the  paper.  He  said  that  it  was  his  letter,  that  he  wrote  it. 
He  made  no  explanation  relative  to  me  or  my  having  seen  it  in  any 
way.  On  the  second  trial  he  testified  that  he  had  written  it  and 
taken  it  to  me,  and  I  had  made  certain  corrections  in  it  and  then  sent 
it.  What  his  testimony  was  at  this  hearing,  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Now,  what  is  the  fact? — A.  When  this  letter  was  introduced 
upon  the  second  trial  of  the  Browne  case,  the  second  trial  of  my  case, 
one  of  the  newspaper  boys — and  that  was  before  Mr.  White’s,  before 
Mr.  White’s  redirect  examination,  after  he  had  identified  it  as  hav¬ 
ing  been  a  letter  of  his,  one  of  the  newspaper  boys  leaned  over  and 
said  to  me - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  I  object. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Never  mind. 

Senator  Burrows.  Can’t  you  come  directly  to  the  question,  whether 
you  corrected  the  letter  and  then  passed  it  to  him? 

A.  Yes.  I  never  saw  the  letter,  I  never  heard  of  the  letter  until  the 
day — that  is  either  in  print  or  any  other  way,  until  the  day  that 
Mr.  William  S.  Forrest,  my  chief  counsel,  and  myself  were  leaving 
his  office  on  the  first  day  of  my  first  trial  to  go  to  the  criminal  court 
in  the  city  of  Chicago,  to  be  present  at  the  trial.  At  that  time  a 
personal — a  friend  met  us  at  the  door - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Now.  I  submit,  he  said  he  never  heard  of  it  up  to 
that  time.  Does  not  that  answer  the  question? 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  that  was  on  or  about  the  7th  day  of  June, 
1910? — A.  I  think  so.  He  said — he  asked  if  I  had  seen  this  and 
showed  me  the  letter,  or  showed  me  the  paper,  a  copy  of  it,  and  I 
said,  “  I  did  not.”  That  is  the  first  I  had  ever  seen  or  ever  heard  of 
it  in  any  way. 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  Mr.  BroAvne,  the  question  is  whether  the 
letter  was  passed  to  you  and  you  corrected  it? — A.  I  never  heard 
of  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  question. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  they  passed  it  to  him  and  he  kept  it? — A. 
I  never  saw  it  or  heard  of  it  in  any  wav. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  the  material  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Meyers,  a  member  of  the  house,  the  forty- 
sixth? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  he  sit  with  reference  to  you? — A.  I  sat  three  seats 
back  from  the  front. 

Q.  From  the  front  row? — A.  The  third  seat  back  from  the  front 
of  the  house,  the  third  row  back  on  the  first  aisle  to  the  left  to  the 
main,  the  center  aisle  as  you  face  the  front  of  the  house.  I  sat  the 
third  row  back  on  the  right-hand  side  of  that  aisle  as  you  face  the 
front.  Mr.  Meyers  sat,  as  I  now  recollect,  three  seats  back  of  me  on 
the  opposite  s:de  of  the  same  aisle,  and  on  the  aisle  both  of  us. 

Q.  Do  you  know  McCann,  the  one-armed  page  of  the  house? — A. 
Very  well. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  647 

Q.  Was  be  there  with  you  that  day  ? — A.  What  day? 

Q.  The  day  of  the  election  of  William  Lorimer  as  United  States 
Senator  ?— A.  He  was  there  upon  the  floor  as  a  page. 

Q.  Where  was  he  with  reference  to  your  desk  during  the  time  of 
the  roll  call  for  the  election  of  the  United  States  Senator,  the  one 
on  which  William  Lorimer  was  elected  United  States  Senator? — A. 
He  was  where  he  usually  was  when  I  was  taking  any  interest  in  any¬ 
thing  or  taking  active  part  in  any  proceedings  that  were  going  on, 
and  that  was  at  my  desk. 

Q.  Did  he  sit  on  a  seat  with  you  or  where? — A.  No,  no. 

Q.  Describe  it;  did  he  stand  at  the  aisle?— A.  He  stood  in  the  aisle. 

Q.  Right  at  the  side  of  your  desk  ?— A.  At  the  side  of  my  desk. 
It,  of  course,  was  in  front  of  my  chair.  My  chair  is  an  ordinary 
swinging  chair.  Here  [indicating]  is  the  desk,  and  then  an  elevated 
part  of  the  oesk  about  that  wide  [indicating] ,  to  piece  across 
there  [indicating],  elevated  possibly  that  far  above  the  main  top  of 
the  desk  [indicating].  He  stood  right  there  [indicating]  in  the  aisle 
at  the  side  of  the  desk. 

Q.  What  was  he  doing?— A.  Well,  just  before  the  senate  came  in, 
I  sent  him  down,  I  think  I  sent  him  down,  either  I  did  or  some  other 
person  next  to  me  sent  him  down,  for  some  roll  calls,  that  is  sheets 
to  keep  a  roll  call.  He  came  back  with  them  and  kept  one  himself, 
and  he  gave  the  others  to  different  members  there,  I  think  Alschuler 
one,  I  think  Tom  Gorman  one — Thomas  Gorman  one — pardon  me. 

Q.  Well - A.  And  kept  one  himself. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? — A.  He  kept  the  roll  call. 

Q.  That  is,  he  kept  it  on  that  blank?— A.  The  roll  I  should  say. 

Q.  He  kept  the  roll  as  the  joint  session  was  called? — A.  Yes",  at 
my  desk,  and  he  had  that,  he  did  that  on  this  elevated  part  of  my 
desk  as  he  stood  in  the  aisle  next  to  me. 

Q.  Was  he  there  all  the  time  during  the  roll  call  which  resulted  in 

the  election  of  William  Lorimer  as  United  States  Senator? _ A.  Yes, 

from  the  time  he  brought  the  roll  call  back  and  that  is  just  before 
the  senate  came  in,  he  never  left  until  after  the  result  was  announced, 
and  I  remember  particularly  of  his  jumping  up  and  down  in  the 
aisle  and  showing  his  joy. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  go  back  to  Mr.  Meyers,  a  member  of  the  house. 
Did  you  send  for  Air.  Meyers  on  that  roll  call,  or  during  that  roll 

call  or  just  before  the  roll  call,  and  did  he  come  to  your  desk? _ A 

No,  sir. 

Q.  During  the  roll  call  of  the  joint  session  that  resulted  in  the 
election  of  William  Lorimer  as  United  States  Senator. — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  send  for  him  on  that  day  at  any  time  to  come  to  your 
desk? — A.  No;  I  have  no  recollection  of  having  sent  for  Mr.  Meyers 
at  any  time. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Meyers  come - A.  I  would  like— pardon  me. 

Q.  Go  on. — A.  It  was  not  a  custom  or  practice  of  mine  to  send 
for  members  to  come  to  my  desk.  I  presume  I  did  it  sometimes 
but  it  was  a  rarity  if  I  did.  If  I  wanted  to  see  some  one,  I  went  to 
his  desk,  as  a  rule. 

Q.  Did  you,  during  that  roll  call  that  resulted  in  the  election  of 
William  Lorimer  as  United  States  Senator,  send  for  Mr.  Meyers  or 
did  he  come  to  your  desk  on  anybody’s  invitation  or  suggestion,  and 
did  you  say  to  him  in  substance:  uCan  you  or  will  you  vote  for  Wil- 


648  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

liam  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator,”  and  did  he  say,  “No;  I 
won’t,”  and  did  you  say,  “  That  .there  was  plenty  of  the  ready  neces¬ 
sary  in  it,  and  state  jobs?  ” — A.  No,  sir;  no  part  of  that,  and  neither 
did  he  come  to  my  desk  during  that  time,  and  neither  upon  that  day 
would  I  have  asked  him  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  and  there  was 
a  good  reason  why. 

Q.  Why,  did  you  talk  to  him  about  it  before  that  time? — A.  Yes; 
several  days  before  in  the  lobby  of  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  on  one  of 
the  settees'!  had  broached  the  subject  to  him,  I  presume  it  was,  maybe 
a  week  before,  and  I  asked  him  whether  he  could  vote  for  Lorimer 
or  something  to  that  effect.  He  said,  “  Lee,  I  could  not  do  it,  I  could 
not  do  it  and  go  home  to  my  people,  my  people  would  not  stand  for 
it,  and  it  would  mean  my  political  death.”  I  said,  “  George,  every 
man  must  look  out  for  himself  in  these  matters;  you  owe  it  to  your¬ 
self.  and  if  it  is  true,  don’t  vote  for  him,  and  don’t  let  anybody  per¬ 
suade  you  to,”  and  I  never  asked  him  after  that  relative  to  that. 

Q.  Did  he  say — did  Mr.  Meyers  say  why  his  people  would  not 
stand  for  his  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer,  whether  it  was  personal  or 
political? — A.  Well,  he  gave  me  the  impression  from  what  he  said 
that  it  was  because  they  would  not  stand  for  a  Democrat  voting  for 
a  Republican. 

Q.  Any  Republican? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  such  a  conversation,  as  I  related  a  moment 
ago,  with  Mr.  Meyers  in  which  you  tried  to  induce  him  to  vote  for 
Senator  Lorimer,  and  offer  him  or  state  to  him  that  there  was  plenty 
of  the  ready  necessary  and  state  jobs?  Did  you  ever  have  that  con¬ 
versation  with  him,  at  any  time  or  place? — A.  Why,  no. 

Q.  Or  any  part  of  it? — A.  It  is  absurd. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  did  not  hear  the  first  part  of  your  answer. 

A.  I  say,  no,  sir;  I  never  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  move  that  the  expression  “  it  is  absurd  ”  be 
stricken  out,  the  characterization  of  the  witness.  It  is  for  the  com¬ 
mittee  to  determine  whether  the  statement  is  absurd. 

Senator  LIeyburn.  The  committee  will  determine;  it  will  be 
stricken  out. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anything  further? 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  you  will  pardon  me  just  a  moment,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man;  I  am  just  checking  off  here. 

Q.  Mr.  Austrian  asked  you  if  you  ever  testified  at  either  of  the 
two  Browne — so-called  Browne — trials  here  in  the  criminal  court  in 
Cook  County,  and  you  said  “no.”  Why  didn’t  you  testify? — A. 
There  were  two  reasons,  only  one  of  which  had  any  moving  force 
with  me.  One,  that  my  counsel  urged  especially,  was  that  there  was 
a  special  grand  jury  kept  waiting  especially,  as  they  claimed,  for  me, 
to  indict  me  if  I  did  testify. 

Q.  Without  regard  to  what  your  desire  was? — A.  Yes;  but  despite 
that  fact  I  insisted  upon  going  upon  the  stand  upon  both  trials,  and 
wanted  to,  and  had  an  open  rupture  with  a  least  one  of  my  counsel 
because  I  was  not  permitted,  and  one  of  my  counsel,  at  least,  notified 
me  he  would  withdraw  from  the  trial  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  move  that  be  stricken  out,  the  conversation  be¬ 
tween  this  man  and  his  counsel;  I  move  that  be  stricken  out. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  subject-matter,  Mr.  Chairmen  and  gentle¬ 
men,  was  brought  out  by  Mr.  Meyers,  showing  to  this  committee  that 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMEK.  649 

he  never  did  testify.  Now.  he  had  some  purpose  in  that,  and  the  pur¬ 
pose  was  to  show  that  Mr.  Browne  was  afraid  to  testify  in  that  case, 
or  at  least  that  would  be  an  inference  that  might  be  drawn  from  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  Mr.  Browne  state  why  he  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  has  testified,  he  has  stated;  but  I  object  to  the 
conversation  between  him  and  counsel. — A.  Pardon  me;  the  only 
reason  that  moved  me,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  commit  • 
tee,  the  only  reason  with  me,  the  moving  cause  with  me,  was  because 
my  counsel  would  not  let  me. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  that  answers  it. 

Senator  Gamble.  You  were  willing:  you  say  you  were  willing? — 
A.  I  was  more  than  willing;  I  had  a  quarrel  with  counsel  on  account 
of  that. 

By  Judge  Hanecy: 

Q.  You  said  that  Senator  Lorimer  was  at  Springfield  and  before 
the  legislature  for  a  considerable  time  before  his  candidacy  for 
United  States  Senator? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  he  doing  there? — A.  I  don’t  know.  He  was  very 
active  on  the  matter  of  deep-waterway  legislation.  I  have  an  idea 
that  he  also  had  this  senatorial  proposition  in  view,  and  that  he  was 
antagonistic  to  Senator  Hopkins.  That  is  only  a  matter  of  inference 
with  me. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  pay  Charles  A.  White  a  thousand  dollars  in  any 
sums  at  any  time  or  at  any  place,  or  did  you  pay  him  any  other 
thing  of  value  at  any  time  or  any  place  on  a  promise  or  understand¬ 
ing  or  arrangement  that  he  was  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator  or  because  he  had  voted  for  William  Lorimer 
for  United  States  Senator? — A.  No;  neither  that  or  any  other  sum. 

Q.  Well,  I  meant  to  cover  any  sum  or  any  other  thing  of  value  ? — • 
A.  Nothing. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  the  same  question  with  reference  to  Becke- 
meyer? — A.  I  give  you  the  same  answer. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  the  same  question  with  reference  to  Michael 
Link. — A.  The  same  answer. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  I  am  very  nearly  through,  Mr.  Chairman, 
but  I  would  like  to  review  this  before  I  let  this  witness  go. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  take  a  recess  until  2  o’clock. 

(Whereupon  an  adjournment  was  had  until  2  o’clock  of  the  same 
day,  Friday,  October  7,  1910.) 

afternoon  session. 

Friday,  October  7,  1910. 

At  2  o’clock  p.  m.  the  committee  met  pursuant  to  recess,  and  the 
following  proceedings  were  had : 

Lee  O’Neill  Browne  resumed  the  stand  for  further  examination  by 
Judge  Hanecy,  and  testified  as  follows: 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Browne,  have  you  been  trying  to  conceal  your¬ 
self  or  to  avoid  coming  before  this  committee,  or  to  prevent  a  sub- 
poenae  from  being  served  upon  you  at  any  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  was  the  answer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  believe  you  stated  when  you  first  learned  a  sub- 
pcenae  was  issued  for  you — did  you — did  you  state  it  here  to  this 


650  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

committee  ?  Oh,  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Broderick.  Do  you  know  wher 
you  first  learned  that  a  subpoenae  was  issued  for  you,  or  that  yoi 
were  wanted  here? — A.  Yes;  on  Saturday  afternoon  last. 

Q.  What,  if  anything,  did  you  do  then  about  notifying  the  sern 
geant-at-arms,  or  having  somebody  do  it  ? — A.  I  was  stopping  at  tht 
Briggs  House,  as  I  have  been  since  the  sixteenth  of  September,  pend-: 
ing  being  called  here,  and  at  the  request  of  the  parties  in  the  case.  Or. 
Friday  night,  late,  I  left  the  Briggs  House,  Friday  evening,  thinking 
there  would  be  only  a  half-day  session  on  Saturday,  and  certainly  ] 
would  not  be  called  then,  or  I  would  have  been  subpoenaed,  and  1 
left  the  Briggs  House  and  went  out  into  one  of  the  suburbs  oi 
Chicago  to  spend  the  time  intervening  between  then  and  Monday 
Saturday  afternoon  I  picked  up  a  paper,  I  think  it  was  the  Journal 
and  discovered  that  I  was  concealing  myself. 

Q.  You  discovered  that  somebody  said  you  were? — A.  The  papei 
said  I  was.  I  immediately  telephoned  or  tried  to  get  my  attorney 
Mr.  Dawson,  by  phone,  and  I  failed,  and  I  next  got  a  friend  of  mine 
at  the  Briggs  House,  by  phone,  and  instructed  him  to  get  into  touch 
with  Mr.  Dawson  and  have  Mr.  Dawson  notify — I  did  not  know  the 
gentleman’s  name  then,  but  I  do  now,  William  Nixon,  who  had  charge 
of  the  process,  and  inform  him  that  there  was  no  necessity  of  hunting 
for  me,  and  that  I  would  be  in  not  later  than  Tuesday — that  I  would 
be  in  Monday  morning,  if  I  was  required,  or  I  would  come  Sunday 
or  any  time.  Mr.  Dawson  did,  as  I  discovered  afterwards - 

Q.  Saturday  afternoon? — A.  Yes;  I  called  up  again  Sunday — I 
called  Mr.  Dawson  personally,  and  he  said  it  had  been  done. 

Q.  What  had  been  done? — A.  That  Mr.  Nixon  had  been  informed, 
and  said  that  it  was  “  all  right;”  that  I  would  be  wanted  the  first  of 
the  week,  or  words  to  that  effect. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  might  ask  you,  was  any  copy  served  upon 
you — copy  of  the  subpoenae  when  you  were  served  ? — A.  There  was  no 
service  had  upon  me,  Senator,  to  my  knowledge.  On  Monday  fore¬ 
noon  I  called  up  Mr.  Dawson,  and  I  had  him  meet  me — I  met  him 
down  town,  rather — I  met  him,  and  we  came  over  here,  and  I  went 
up  into  Mr.  Nixon’s  office,  and  I  was  introduced  to  Mr.  Nixon,  and  I 
told  him  I  accepted  service. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  only  thought  I  had  in  making  the  sugges¬ 
tion  was  this:  That  if  a  copy  was  served  upon  you  of  course  the 
original  would  show"  the  date  of  its  issue. — A.  I  don’t  know  when  it 
was  issued,  but  there  was  no  copy - 

Senator  Gamble.  My  recollection  of  it  in  regard  to  the  issuing  is 
that  it  was  probably  on  Thursday  night.  Possibly  I  may  be  in 
error. — A.  There  was  no  cop}^  served  upon  me.  I  was  served  in  the 
room  here  in  this  building — in  the  marshal’s  room. 

Judge  FIanecy.  You  accepted  service? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  you  came  up  here  for  the  purpose  of  being  served? — A. 
For  no  other  purpose.  And  I  desire  to  say  in  my  own  behalf  that 
there  was  no  second  or  minute  that  I  was  either  trying  to  evade  serv¬ 
ice  or  desired  to  be  away  when  called  by  this  committee  or  anyone 
connected  with  this  investigation.  I  had  nothing  to  conceal,  and  I 
have  had  no  desire  to  conceal  myself,  and  those  articles  in  the  papers 
were  simply  in  line  with  the  treatment  that  I  have  received  for  five 
months  at  the  hands  of  the  press  in  this  city. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  651 

Further  examination  by  Mr.  Austrian: 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  did  J udge  Hanecy  at  any  time  tell  you  that  he  had 
been  notified  that  you  were  on  a  list  of  witnesses  that  had  been 
handed  him  on  the  20th  day  of  September? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  did,  did  he? — A.  Yes,  sir;  and  he  told  me  before  the  inves¬ 
tigation  started  that  he  would  want  me  as  a  witness  himself,  if  the 
other  side  did  not,  and  I  told  him  I  would  be  here  as  soon  as  the 
investigation  started,  and  I  would  remain  here,  and  I  have  done  so. 

Q.  Then  Judge  Hanecy  was  fully  advised  of  your  presence  and 
whereabouts;  is  that  correct? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Since  the  investigation  started,  at  all  times? — A.  Of  course, 
Mr.  Austrian,  I  am  not  a  mind  reader,  but  I  know  of  no  reason  why 
he  should  not  be. 

Q.  I  forgot  to  ask  you  this :  Are  you  a  married  man,  or  a  man  of 
a  family? — A.  Pardon  me,  just  a  minute,  in  reference  to  that  pre¬ 
vious  question.  During  those  two  weeks  there  were  three  times  when 
I  was  out  of  town,  necessarily,  on  business,  and  when  I  went  out  into 
the  suburbs  on  Friday  night,  and  I  did  not  notify  Judge  Hanecy 
where  I  was  going.  Now,  at  those  times  of  course  he  could  not  know. 
No;  I  am  not  a  married  man. 

Q.  Other  than  those  times  you  have  just  indicated  Judge  Hanecy 
did  know  ? — A.  I  presume  so.  My  home  has  been  the  Briggs  House, 
and  I  have  not  been  away  from  there  to  speak  of  except  to  be  around 
town. 

Q.  Mr.  O’Donnell  appears  here,  and  Mr.  Hanecy  who  appears 
here — they  are  your  counsel,  aren’t  they? — A.  Oh,  I  can  not  say  that 
■Judge  Hanecy  is  my  counsel.  I  have  not - 

Q.  You  have  answered. — A.  I  never  paid  him  anything  for  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  do  you  not  want  this  committee  to  understand 
that  Mr.  White  on  any  one  of  the  prior  Browne  trials,  or  any  one 
of  the  Browne  trials,  testified  that  at  the  time  he  said  you  had  the 
conversation  with  him  with  reference  to  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
that  anyone  was  present,  either  Yarbrough  or  anyone  else? — A.  Oh, 
no;  the  conversation  that  he  referred  to  he  has  always  insisted  oc¬ 
curred  in  the  presence  of  nobody  but  himself  and  myself  in  my  room, 
is  I  understand  it. 

Q.  Yes;  you  said  on  the  16th  or  17th  of  June  Mr.  White  borrowed 
f>25  from  you  ? — A.  Well,  I  did  not  say  the  16th  or  17th.  I  said  the 
L7th,  being  the  day  that  he  went  away,  and  I  fixed  it  by  that,  and 
iy  looking  at  the  register. 

Q.  And  you  don’t  know  whether  it  was  $25  or  $30,  is  that  correct  ? — 
4.  No;  I  can  not  tell  you  the  amount. 

Q.  That  was  all  repaid  to  you,  was  it? — A.  My  impression  is,  Mr. 
Austrian,  that  he  handed  that  back  to  me  in  the  latter  part  of  July. 

[  have  no  independent  recollection  of  it,  but  I  figure  he  paid  it  to 
ne  then. 

Q.  But  you  have  a  distinct  recollection  he  borrowed  it? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Why  isn’t  your  recollection  as  distinct  about  receiving  it  back 
is  it  is  that  he  borrowed  it?  Can  you  tel]  this  committee  that? — 
4.  No;  I  can  not  tell  you  why  my  mind  does  not  work  along  the  lines 
7ou  suggest. 

Q.  The  payment  back  to  you  was  subsequent  to  the  time  of  the 
xJrrowing? — A.  Necessarily. 


652  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  you  can  tell  this  committee  you  have  a  distinct  recollection 
about  putting  your  hand  into  your  left  trouser  pocket  and  pulling 
out  a  small  roll  of  bills  and,  as  you  say,  unfolding  $25  or  $30 — your 
recollection  is  refreshed - A.  I  did  not  say  that. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  ? — A.  I  say  a  small  roll  of  paper  money,  less 
than  $100,  and  I  counted  otf  some  bills  and  gave  it  to  him. 

Q.  You  said  $25  or  $30,  didn’t  you? — A.  I  said  $25  or  $30,  a  small 
sum,  less  than  $50. 

Q.  You  have  a  distinct  recollection  you  had  less  than  $100  at  that 
time? — A.  I  have  no  independent  recollection,  but  that  is  my  im¬ 
pression. 

Q.  You  have  no  impression  of  when  he  paid  it  back — you  have  no 
independent  recollection  of  when  he  paid  it  back  to  you.  have  you? — 
A.  Yes,  but  I  have  nothing  clear  or  definite,  except  that  my  mind 
tells  me  that  it  was  paid  back ;  I  think  it  was  at  that  time. 

Q.  Mr.  Hanecy,  would  you  be  kind  enough  to  give  me  the  ex¬ 
hibits  you  introduced,  please,  the  Belleville  letter? 

Senator  Gamble.  May  I  interrupt  you?  As  I  recollect  your  testi¬ 
mony  in  chief,  Mr.  Browne,  you  spoke  about  borrowing  from  Mr. 
White  at  one  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  August. 

The  Witness.  During  the  lake  trip. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  was  something  like  $25,  was  it? — A.  Some¬ 
thing  along  there. 

Q.  And  what  was  the  date  of  that? — A.  Mr.  Senator,  that  was 
some  time  between  Sunday  morning  of  August  15  and  Thursday 
morning  of  August  19. 

Q.  That  was  in  August? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  at  about  the  same  time,  you  say  you  took  from  him  or 
kept  something  like  $200? — A.  No,  no;  I  didn’t  say  $200.  I  did  not 
state  the  amount.  I  am  unable  to  state  what  the  amount  was. 

Q.  I  thought  Mr.  Austrian  suggested  a  certain  sum? — A.  Well, 
I  don’t  know  whether  he  did  or  not,  but  I  am  unable  to  state  the 
amount. 

Q.  When  you  took  this  money;  when  was  that? — A.  That  was, 
as  near  as  I  can  recollect,  on  the  night  or  evening  rather,  of  Thurs¬ 
day,  August  19,  or  the  next  day. 

Q,  Those  two  transactions,  in  regard  to  the  borrowing  on  your 
part  of  $25,  and  your  keeping  for  him - A.  Safe  keeping. 

Q.  - safe  keeping  of  money  were  in  the  month  of  August? — 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  I  had  gotten  it  confused  with  the  month  of  July,  and  that  is 
the  reason  I  asked  the  questions. — A.  All  right,  Mr.  Senator. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  know,  but  I  supposed  I  got  that  back 
from  Miss  Lawler. 

Miss  Lawler.  I  am  positive  you  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  I  can  find  it  in  the  transcript,  Judge. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  is  a  printed  slip. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  it  in  the  transcript. 

Judge  Hanecy.  All  right. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Browne,  you  now  recall,  do  you  not,  the  con¬ 
tents  of  the  alleged  White  letter  to  Mr.  Kern,  of  the'Belleville  Demo¬ 
crat,  if  I  remember  the  name  correctly? — A.  Only  in  a  general  way, 
Mr.  Austrian. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  653 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  tell  this  committee  that  you  assisted  Mr. 
White  in  the  preparation  of  bills,  the  revision  of  labor  measures 
that  he  was  interested  in,  etc. — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  that  Mr.  White  was  not  a  literate  man,  and  I  believe  you 
used  the  expression  that  he  was  somewhat  an  illiterate  man? — A.  I 
did  not  say  that  he  was  one  or  the  other. 

Q.  Well,  was  he  a  literate  man  or  an  illiterate  man? — A.  Well, 
I  would  not  call  Mr.  White  an  illiterate  man.  I  would  call  him  a 
man  of  very  ordinary  education  and  very  ordinary  literary  attain¬ 
ments;  I  would  not  call  him  illiterate  at  all. 

Q.  White  did  not  even  spell  correctly,  did  he? — A.  Well,  some 
times  I  have  noticed  inaccuracies  in  his  spelling. 

Q.  Now,  in  this  article,  “  Exhibit  T  ”  (Rec.,  p.  312),  White  says: 

It  gives  me  pleasure  to  know  that  there  are  men  in  public  life,  prominent  in 
the  Democratic  party,  who  can  look  upon  a  situation  of  this  character  with  as 
broad  and  liberal  views  as  you  have  expressed  yourself  through  the  editorial 
of  your  valuable  paper.  The  Republican  party  of  this  State  is,  as  has  been 
demonstrated  in  this  present  session  of  the  legislature,  divided  in  such  a  manner 
that  it  was  practically  impossible,  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  for  them  to 
settle  this  long  and  expensive  drawn-out  contest,  and  feeling  that  the  State  of 
Illinois  should  be  represented  in  the  United  States  Senate  during  those  critical 
moments  by  a  man  from  this  State,  I  felt  it  a  public  duty,  after  careful  con¬ 
ference  with  older  and  more  experienced  workers  in  the  Democratic  ranks,  to 
cast  my  vote  for  the  Hon.  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator. 

Now,  Mr.  Browne,  does  that  sound  to  you  like  Mr.  White? — -A. 
I  can  not  say  to  you,  Mr.  Austrian,  that  it  sounds  like  anybody  in 
particular. 

Q.  You  knew  White  ? — A.  I  knew  White. 

Q.  A  ou  knew  W kite  well  at  that  time? — A.  I  have  stated  how  well 
I  have  known  him. 

Q.  You  did  know  him  well? — A.  I  have  stated  how  well  I  knew 

him. 

Q.  Did  you  consider  that  you  knew  White  well  or  that  you  did  not 
know  him  well? — A.  It  is  immaterial  what  I  considered. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  whether  you  knew  him  well  or  not? — A.  That 
depends  on  what  you  mean  by  “  well.”  I  have  stated  to  you  and 
to  the  committee  how  I  knew  him — my  acquaintance  with  him. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  know  White  well  enough  to  know  whether  he  was 
capable  of  writing  a  letter  to  a  newspaper  couched  in  that  phrase¬ 
ology  or  language? — A.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  White  was 
not  capable  of  writing  a  letter  of  that  kind.  I  am  not  prepared  to 
say  that  White  did  write  that  letter.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  who 
did  write  that  letter.  I  do  not  know  who  wrote  the  letter. 

Q.  Did  White  talk  to  you  anything  about  writing  a  letter  to  his 
home  newspaper,  or  a  newspaper  in  his  home  vicinity? — A.  Abso¬ 
lutely  not. 

Q.  Didn’t  confer  with  you  about  it? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  never  knew  anything  about  it?— A.  No. 

Q.  Nor  heard  anything  about  it? — A.  No. 

Q.  Directly  or  indirectly? — A.  Directly  or  indirectly. 

Q.  Now,  did  White  ever  express  to  you  the  fact,  during  the  special 
session  of  the  legislature,  that  he  had  been  ostracized  by  his  constitu¬ 
ency  in  his  home  town  by  reason  of  his  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  or 
anything  akin  to  that? — A.  We  only  had  the  one  conversation,  that 
I  spoke  to  you  about,  and  I  don’t  believe,  Mr.  Austrian,  that  that 


654  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

was  embodied  in  our  conversation.  The  conversation  was  very  brief; 
and  as  I  say,  he  seemed  to  not  want  to  have  any  talk  with  me,  and  I 
do  not  believe  that  matter  was  touched  upon. 

Q„  Did  anyone  else  express  to  you  any  statements  that  had  been 
made  to  that  person  or  such  persons  from  White,  with  reference  to 
his  constituency,  by  reason  of  his  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  When 
do  you  mean  did  they? 

Q.  During  the  special  session. — A.  I  can  not  remember;  they  may 
have. 

Q.  You  stated,  in  response  to  a  question  put  to  you  by  Mr.  Hanecv, 
the  reason  why  one  of  your  counsel  or  lawyers  had  not  permitted 
you  to  go  upon  the  witness  stand  was  that  he  had  been  informed 
that  there  was  a  special  grand  jury  wanting  to  indict  you,  whether 
you  testified  to  the  truth  or  to  a  falsehood.  Do  you  mean  to  be 
understood  that  way  ? — A.  I  mean  to  be  understood - 

Q.  Well,  wait.  I  want  to  know  whether  you  want  to  be  so  under¬ 
stood.  That  is  my  understanding.  If  I  am  incorrect  in  my  under¬ 
standing,  just  say  so. — A.  You  have  stated  it  with  substantial 
accuracy. 

Q.  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  during  the  course  of  your  entire  first 
trial  there  was  no  special  grand  jury,  was  there? — A.  No;  well,  I 
say  “  No,”  but  I  don't  recall  that  there  was,  now. 

Q.  You  have  not  heard  that  there  was,  have  you? — A.  I  say,  I  do 
not  recall  that  there  was. 

Q.  Now,  during  the  second  one  of  your  trials,  Mr.  Browne,  a 
special  grand  jury  was  not  convened  nor  called  until  after  the  defense 
started  to  put  in  testimony  ? — A.  It  was  called  some  time  during  the 
trial. 

Q.  Were  you  afeared  that  if  you  testified  to  the  truth  that  you — 
and  I  mean  you  personally,  you  personally  I  ain  talking  about,  and 
not  what  some  one  told  you — were  you  afraid? — A.  Well,  do  you 
mean  afeared  or  afraid? 

Q.  Well,  you  can  take  it  either  way.  It  is  just  like  the  yea  and 
nay.  Just  answer  yes  or  no. — A.  I  want  to  know  if  I  understand 
you;  I  just  wanted  to  know  if  I  understood  you,  that  is  all. 

Q.  Well,  you  can  take  either  one.  Were  you  afraid,  Mr.  Browne, 
or  afeared  that  if  you  testified  to  the  truth  in  any  proceeding  against 
you  in  the  criminal  court  of  Cook  County,  that  23  men  constituting 
a  special  grand  jury  of  this  county  Avould  indict  you? — A.  No,  sir. 
Mr.  Austrian ;  there  was  no  spot  or  place  in  either  trial  that  I  was 
afraid  of  any  grand  jury  in  any  proceedings  against  me,  but  I  did 
consider  that  I  had  to  be  subservient  to  the  wishes  of  my  counsel,  or 
to  my  counsel,  and  I  could  not  afford  to  have  my  counsel  desert  me 
in  the  middle  of  a  case. 

Q.  I  have  asked  you  if  you  were  afraid  ? — A.  And  I  have  told  you 
“  No.” 

Q.  That  would  have  been  an  answer.  Mr.  Browne,  the  grand  jury 
in  the  State  of  Illinois  consists  of  23  men,  doesn’t  it? — A.  Yes;  that 
is  the  number  of  men. 

Q.  And  the  panel  from  which  the  grand  jury  is  selected  in  Illinois 
or  the  county  of  Cook,  so  far  as  you  know,  is  a  special  panel,  isn’t 
it,  drawn  from  a  jury  box,  known  only  as  the  grand  jury  list  or  the 
grand  jury  box;  is  that  correct? — A.  Yes. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  655 

Q-  And  the  ^  men  constituting  the  grand  jurors  in  the  counties 
)f  this  State  are  supposed  to  be  the  more  intelligent  and  the  more 

representative  men  of  the  vicinities  from  which  they  are  drawn? _ - 

L  I  never  heard  of  it. 

^-ou  never  heard  of  it.  Then  what  did  you  construe  or  con¬ 
sider  that  the  sjiecial  grand  jury  was  made  up  from,  and  what  were 

he  purposes - A.  The  men  were  supposed — I  can  not  tell  you  your 

procedure  in  Cook  County. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  am  referring  to. — A.  You  have  jury  commis- 
ioners  here,  and  I  am  not  familiar  with  vour  procedure.  Out  in 
he  other  districts  of  the  State,  all  over,  outside  of  Cook  County, 
he  supervisors  place  in  the  box  each  year  in  September,  lists  to  be 
Irawn  from,  as  I  understand  it.  I  never  paid  very  much  attention 
o  that,  either. 

Q.  You  say  that  your  counsel — what  counsel  do  you  refer  to  as 
laving  made  the  statement  that  you  would  have  been  indicted  for 
lerjury,  whether  you  testified  to  the  truth  or  not?  What  counsel 
>aye  you  that  direction  or  advice?— A.  Unless  the  committee  insists 
>n  it,  I  do  not  care  to  discuss - 

Mr*  Austrian.  I  insist  upon  it.  He  has  detailed  conversations 
•etween  himself — I  remember  the  admonition  of  one  of  the  Senators 
nth  reference  to  calling  for  declarations  between  counsel  and 
lient.  I  objected  to  it,  and  over  my  objection  he  was  permitted  to 
estify  that  he  did  not  go  on  the  stand,  because  his  counsel  would  not 
lermit  him,  and  Judge  Hanecy  put  one  of  these  questions  with  refer- 
nce  to  the  grand  jury:  “  They  would  have  indicted  you  whether  vou 
wore  to  the  truth  or  not.”  Now,  I  want  to  know  what  lawyer  at  "the 
ar,  here  in  Chicago,  will  advise  a  client  that  he  would  be  indicted 

y  a  special  grand  jury  for  perjury  whether  he  testified  to  the  truth 
r  not  ? 

The  Witness.  I  Avould  like  to  say,  in  that  connection,  if  the  com- 
uttee  please - 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  minute,  please,  I  want  a  ruling  on  mv 
uestion.  •  J 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  answer.— A.  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman, 
lat  my  counsel  were  nearly  unanimous  upon  the  proposition  that  if 
went  upon  the  stand,  especially  during  the  last  trial — if  I  went  upon 
ie  stand  and  testified,  denying  that  I  paid  money  to  White  and  to 
leckemeyer  and  to  Link,  on  the  face  of  their  statements,  that  I  would 
e  indicted  by  the  grand  jury.  I  think  my  counsel  all  agreed  that 
le  state’s  attorney  of  Cook  County  would  see  to  it  that  that  was 
one,  and  that  he  was  terrifically  interested. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  was  the  advice  given  you  by  counsel? _ A. 

think  it  was  unanimous,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  constituted  that  unanimous  counsel? _ A. 

fell,  there  was  William  S.  Forrest,  who  was  chief  counsel,  Patrick 
L  O’Donnell,  and  Charles  Erbstein,  and  I  considered  it  at  that  time, 
i  that  matter,  that  Judge  Ilanecy  was  an  advisory  counselor,  and  he 
?reed  with  it. 

Q.  Of  the  counsel  whom  you  have  mentioned,  the  three  counsel 
ho  appear  here  for  Mr.  Lorimer  were  your  counsel  in  that  case, 

that  right,  Mr.  Bachrach — Mr.  Forrest’s  partner  was  one  of  them  ? _ - 

.  He  was  not  one  of  them,  and  never  lias  been. 

Q.  He  took  no  part  in  the  proceeding? — A.  No. 


656  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Mr.  Hanecy  is  the  same  Judge  Hanecy  who  appeared  in  tha 
trial? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  Mr.  O’Donnell  is  the  same  O’Donnell  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  there  anything  further? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Browne,  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question  or  two 

Q.  Was  there  a  Democratic  nominee  for  United  States  Senator  a 
a  primary  preceding  the  meeting  of  the  legislature? — A.  There  was 
Senator. 

Q.  Who  was  that? — A.  Do  you  mean  the  one  selected  at  the  pri 
maries  in  that  year? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  That  was  Lawrence  B.  Stringer. 

Q.  Did  the  Democrats  of  the  legislature  vote  for  Mr.  Stringer,  al 
of  them,  up  to  a  short  time  before  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected? — A.  No 
by  no  means.  * 

Q.  Did  he,  at  any  time,  receive  all  of  the  votes  of  the  Democratic 
members  of  the  legislature? — A.  Yes;  yes,  he  did,  Senator;  I  thin! 
along  at  the  first  he  did  for  some  time,  and  then  they  began  breaking 
away  on  complimentary  votes  to  please  this  one  and  that  one  in  thi 
locality  and  that  locality.  I  would  not  state  the  number,  but  a  grea 
many  men  were  voted  for. 

Q.  Did  these  Democrats  who  had  voted  for  a  certain  time  for  Mr 
Stringer  vote  for  other  Democrats  or  did  they  vote  for  Republi 
cans? — A.  Democrats. 

Q.  Democrats? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  Mr.  Shurtleff  came  to  you  and  suggested  to  you  th 
proposition  to  see  whether  or  not  there  could  be  an  arrangement  o 
agreement  by  which  the  Democrats,  or  certain  Democrats  in  the  legis 
lature,  could  be  induced  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  I  believe  you  stated 
upon  yesterday  that  you  told  him  you  would  take  the  matter  unde 
advisement? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  thereupon  you  did  advise  with  certain  friends,  politica 
friends  or  otherwise,  outside  of  the  legislature? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  any  objection  to  telling  some  with  whom  you  ad 
vised  with  respect  to  that  matter? — A.  No;  I  advised  with  my  part 
ner  at  home,  my  law  partner,  for  one;  I  advised  with  a  man  by  th 
name  of — well,  no,  I  did  not  advise  with  him  before — I  had  de 
cided,  but  I  think  I  talked  the  matter  over  with  an  old  partner  o 
mine,  a  man  I  was  in  business  with  the  first  time,  a  man  by  the  nam 
of  Ayers.  I  do  not  now  recollect — although  he  was  a  Republican — 
do  not  now  recollect  that  he  advised  me  to  adopt  that  course, 
could  not  go  on  and  specify,  because  I  talked  with  a  great  many 
Senator,  a  great  many  persons  were  asked  along  that  line  in  a  ver 
short  time. 

Q.  Did  you  come  to  Chicago  in  the  interim,  between  the  time  th 
matter  was  suggested  to  you  by  Mr.  Shurtleff  and  the  time  you  de 
cided  upon  the  course  you  would  take? — A.  I  can  not  tell  you  that 
for  this  reason:  When  I  come  home  from  Springfield  I  usually  coni 
to  Joliet  on  the  Alton,  that  is  40  miles  below  here,  and  make  quid 
connection  across  town  to  the  Rock  Island,  upon  which  road  I  live 
and  go  out  on  that  40  miles,  so  that  I  do  not  get  to  Chicago,  goin« 
that  way.  Now,  whether  I  came  on  through  to  Chicago  or  got  off  a 
Joliet  and  went  out  home  I  can  not  tell  you  now. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  657 

Q.  Did  you  advise  with  any  one  or  number  of  people  in  Chicago 
with  reference  to  the  course  you  would  take  ? — A.  I  received  com¬ 
munications  from  a  large  number. 

Q.  Can  you  recall  any  ? — A.  I  can  recall  one  especially  now.  A  man 
who  used  to  be  a  very  prominent  man  in  my  country,  who  is  a  promi¬ 
nent  business  man,  James  McQuay,  of  the  Garden  City  Sand 
Company. 

Q.  Did  you  advise  with  anybody  else  in  Chicago,  any  politicians 
or  statesmen? — A.  I  do  not  now  recall  that  I  did. 

Q.  Was  there  any  conference  between  you  and  any  other  gentlemen 
interested  in  politics  in  the  State,  with  reference  to  the  course  that 
you  and  those  associated  with  you  should  take,  as  to  the  suggestion  of 
Mr.  Shurtleff,  between  the  time  it  was  suggested  by  him  and  the  time 
you  determined  upon  it?— A.  Not  outside  “of  the  legislative  members 
on  my  side,  Mr.  Senator,  and  no  conference  among  them  as  a  confer¬ 
ence  would  be  regarded.  Mr.  Cermak,  Mr.  Werdell,  myself,  and 
probably  one  or  two  others  met  once  or  twice. 

Q.  Was  there  at  no  time  any  conference  of  the  men  interested  in 
politics  in  the  State  and  those  associated  with  you  with  reference 

to  the  matter  before  you  determined  upon  the  course  you  took  2 _ 

A.  No. 

Q.  Then  you  determined  upon  that  substantially  upon  your  own 
judgment? — A.  No. 

Q.  What  did  you  base  your  determination  to  take  up  the  matter  for 
Mr.  Lorimer  on? — A.  On  what  seemed  to  me,  and  to  the  others  that 
I  talked  with,  to  be  a  reasonable  course  to  pursue  under  the  circum¬ 
stances.  You  must  understand,  Senator,  that  at  that  time  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  side  was  pretty  badly  split  up,  not  only  in  the  legislature,  but 
outside,  and  it  was  a  real  split,  too,  and  not  a  fancied  one. 

Q.  Did  you  reach  a  conclusion  at  that  time  that  it  was  impossible 
to  elect  a  Democrat  to  the  Senate? — A.  Yes;  yes. 

Q.  Had  you  considered  the  question,  or  did  you  consider  the  ques¬ 
tion,  in  making  up  your  determination  on  Mr.  ShurtlefTs  suggestion, 
as  to  the  advisability  of  continuing  the  deadlock,  so  as  to  allow  the 
legislature  to  adjourn  without  electing  a  Senator  at  all? — A.  Yes; 
that  had  been  considered. 

Q,  Did  you  advise  with  any  Democrat  as  to  the  wisdom  or  pro¬ 
priety,  from  a  party  standpoint,  of  taking  that  course? — A.  Yes;  I 
can  not  remember  of  anyone  in  particular,  but  I  did  with  several, 
Senator,  and  that  would  be  an  added  reason,  if  anything _ 

Senator  Burrows.  Speak  louder. — A.  I  say  that  would  be  an  added 
reason,  if  anything,  why,  perhaps,  an  election  was  brought  about,  was 
that  it  was — Governor  Deneen  was  not  very  popular  with  a  good 
many  of  the  Democrats,  for  a  good  many  reasons,  and  it  seemed  to  be 
the  view  and  the  idea  among  them,  a  good  many  of  them,  that  it  was 
Governor  Deneen’s  plan  and  idea  to  prevent  the  election  of  a  Senator 
at  all,  so  as  to  keep  the  reins  in  his  own  hands.  That  was  the 
impression  that  was  abroad  in  the  land. 

Q.  How  would  that  keep  the  reins  in  his  hands?  Will  you  explain 
hat? — A.  Well,  because  it  was  felt  that  in  that  way  he  would  control 
he  senatorial  situation  and  dictate  the  patronage.  There  may  not 
lave  been  any  sanity  in  the  proposition,  but  that  is  what  it  was. 

Q.  It  was  not  suggested  that  he  would  have  the  power  to  appoint 
i  Senator,  if  the  legislature  had  failed  to  elect  one? — A.  No. 

70024°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 42 


658  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  it  was  not  suggested  that  if  the  legislature  failed  to  elect 
at  the  regular  session  that  it  would  be  more  likely  to  elect  at  a  called 
session,  was  it?— A.  No;  but  it  was  the  feeling  in  the  house  that  the 
governor  was  assuming  control  and  directing  the  legislature  as  to 
what  it  should  do  in  the  matter ;  assumed  to  exercise  that  power,  not 
only  to  prevent  Hopkins  from  being  elected,  but  refusing  himself  to 
be  a  candidate  and  being  elected,  but  preventing  Lorimer  from  being 
elected,  and  preventing  anybody  from  being  elected.  Now,  that  was 

the  feeling.  .  .  . 

Q.  Did  you  share  that  feeling?— A.  It  seemed  to  me— it  looked 

to  me  as  if  that  was  what  he  was  doing. 

Q.  As  a  Democrat  and  from  a  Democratic  standpoint  did  you 
think  it  would  be  more  advantageous  to  the  Democratic  party  to  let 
the  Republicans,  who  had  a  majority  in  the  legislature,  fail  to  elect 
and  let  the  legislature  adjourn  without  the  election  of  a  Senator  or  to 
elect  a  Republican  ?— A.  I  felt  it  would  be  more  advantageous  to  the 
Democrats  to  pursue  the  course  that  was  pursued. 

Q.  You  thought  it  would  be  more  advantageous  for  the  Democrats 
or  a  portion  of  the  Democrats  to  join  with  a  portion  of  the  Repub¬ 
licans  and  elect  a  Republican  than  not  to  elect  anyone?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  was  your  judgment? — A.  I  thought  so. 

Q.  Was  that  reached  after  a  consultation  with  your  political  friends 
and  associates?— A.  Only  as  I  have  suggested  to  you.  No  caucus  or 
anything. 

Q.  No  caucus? — A.  No  caucus.  . 

Q.  After  you  had  reached  that  conclusion,  did  you  notify  Mr. 
Shurtleff  of  your  conclusion  and  what  you  were  willing  to  do?— A.  I 
notified  Mr.  Shurtleff  that  I  was  willing  to  try  to  elect  Senator  Lori¬ 
mer,  and  that  I  was  willing  to  try  to  influence,  if  you  please,  or  get 
as  many  of  my  own  followers  to  vote  for  him  as  I  could. 

Q.  Was  there  any  suggestion,  Mr.  Browne,  made  to  you  by  Mr. 
Shurtleff  or  anyone  else  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  that  there 
was  to  be  any  advantage,  any  consideration,  direct  or  indirect,  either 
in  money  or  anything  of  value  or  patronage  that  should  come  to  you 
or  any  of  your'  associates  if  you  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  or  for  your 
entering  the  arrangement  bv  which  you  would  try  to  secure  his  elec¬ 
tion?— A.  Absolutely  no,  Senator;  and  I  was  further— after  Mr. 
Shurtleff  spoke  to  me,  or  at  the  time  he  spoke  to  me  upon  the  first 
occasion,  he  said  to  me,  simply,  that  he  was  interested  in  Lorimer 
as  a  friend.  They  belonged  to  the  same  political  clique  or  faction 
or  following,  and  that  he  wanted— he  did  not  want  to  see  Hopkins 
elected,  and  he  would  like  to  see  Mr.  Lorimer  elected.  I  suggested 
to  him  that  his  name  had  been  mentioned  during  the  session  as  a 
possible  candidate;  and  he  said,  yes;  but  he  didn't  think  he  could 
be  elected,  and  I  assured  him  that  I  agreed  with  linn,  personally, 
that  he  could  not. 

Q.  Were  there  any  Republicans  suggested  to  you  as  men  upon 
whom  the  Democrats  and  Republicans  might  combine,  other  than  Air. 
Lorimer? — A.  No;  not  during  the  entire  session. 

Q.  Had  other  names  been  suggested  or  offered  to  the  joint  assembly, 
or  presented  to  the  joint  assembly,  and  voted  for? — A.  Oh,  yes;  yes. 

Q.  But  they  hadn’t  agreed  sufficiently  for  any  man  to  be  elected  ?— 
A.  No  Democrat  had  voted - * 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  659 

Q.  No  Democrat  had  voted  for  any  Republican  up  to  the  time 
they  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  No;  no. 

Q.  Was  there  any  proposition - A.  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Senator,  I 

believe  I  am  in  error  there.  I  believe  that  Mr.  Shurtletf’s  name  was 
proposed  as  a  candidate  early  in  the  session,  and  he  had  a  coterie  of 
followers,  a  small  coterie,  never  reaching  beyond  30,  I  don’t  think, 
who  voted  for  him,  until  along  down  toward  the  close  of  the  battle 
or  deadlock — I  think  that  there  were  two  or  three  or  four  friends  of 
Shurtletf  s  on  the  Democratic  side  who  gave  him  a  complimentary 
vote  occasionally,  or  two  or  three  times;  I  think  so,  but  I  would  not 
be  positive. 

Q.  Were  there  any  propositions  made  to  you  by  Mr.  Lorimer  or 
anyone  representing  Mr.  Lorimer  that  if  the  Democrats  or  a  suf¬ 
ficient  number  of  Democrats  to  secure  his  election  would  vote  for 
him,  that  they  should  have  a  division  of  the  patronage,  the  federal 
patronage  of  the  State? — A.  Nothing  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Nothing  suggested  ? — A.  Nothing. 

Q.  Neither  directly  nor  indirectly? — A.  Neither  directly  nor  indi¬ 
rectly. 

Q.  By  Mr.  Lorimer  or  anyone?— A.  No;  and  not  directlv  nor 
indirectly. 

Q.  Was  there  any  such  suggestion  as  that  made  by  Governor 
Deneen,  or  anyone  representing  him?— A.  I  never  talked  with 
Governor  Deneen  but  twice  in  my  life,  that  I  remember  of,  Senator, 
and  at  neither  time— it  was  three  times— at  neither  time  was  anything 
of  that  kind  discussed,  except,  I  think,  it  was  the  last,  it  was  the 
last  occasion,  after  the  session  closed,  and  after  I  had  seen  my  mem¬ 
bers  over  the  State,  I  talked  with  them,  and  I  went  to  Governor 
Deneen  on  a  personal  mission  for  them,  to  see  if  my  faction  could  not 
receive  at  least  a  division  of  the  minority  appointments  in  this 
State.  Aside  from  that  I  never  discussed  the  matter,  or  a  matter  of 
that  kind  with  Governor  Deneen  directly  or  indirectly. 

Q,  What  do  you  mean  by  minority  appointments  in  the  State? 
Do  they  allow  Democrats  up  here  to  have  any  patronage  at  all  in  a 
Republican  administration  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  statute  provides  for  it. 

Senator  Frazier.  In  some  instances - 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  in  all. 

The  Witness.  That  depends  on  what  Democrats  they  are.  Senator; 
my  crowd  did  not  get  any.  My  friend,  Roger  Sullivan,  who  had 
control  of  the  other  faction,  was  powerful  enough  to  arrange  those 
little  matters.  1 

Q.  Was  there  a  campaign  committee  formed  by  you,  or  your  asso¬ 
ciates,  after  you  notified  Mr.  Shurtletf  that  you  would  do  what  you 
were  going  to  do,  that  you  would  do  what  you  could  to  aid  in  Mr. 
Lorimer’s  election? — A.  No;  no  campaign  committee,  aside  from 
what  I  have  stated  to  you,  little  gatherings  in  Mr.  Shurtletf  s  and  Mr. 
Lorimer’s  suite  of  rooms  that  would  consist  of  Mr.  Shurtletf,  Mr. 
Lorimer,  Mr.  Shanahan,  and  frequently  myself,  and  sometimes  Mr. 
Chiperfield,  B.  M.  Chiperfield,  and  Mr."  Edward  Smodjkel,  but  gen¬ 
erally  Mr.  Shurtletf  and  Mr.  Lorimer  and  Mr.  Shanahan  and  Mr. 
Chiperfield  and  myself. 

Q.  You  did  meet  every  few  nights,  or  every  night,  possibly,  did 
you  ? — A.  Sometimes. 


660  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  During  the  pendency  of  it  ?— A.  Several  times,  several  times  in 
a  night. 

Q.  To  confer  together? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Why  did  you  insist  to  Mr.  Shurtleff  and  Mr.  Lorimer  that  no 
Democrat  should  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  until  you  were  notified  by 
them  that  there  was  a  sufficient  number  of  votes — a  sufficient  number 
of  gentlemen  who  would  vote  for  Lorimer  to  elect  him? — A.  Well, 
for  the  reasons  I  stated  to  Mr.  Austrian  this  morning,  and  because, 
Senator,  I  felt,  whether  it  was  correct  or  not,  that  a  movement  of 
that  kind,  if  successful,  would  not  endanger  or  jeopardize  a  man’s 
political  success  at  home,  whereas,  if  it  was  a  failure  it  would.  I 
may  be  wrong  in  that,  however. 

Q.  So  you  insisted  that  no  Democrat  should  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
until  you  were  advised  that  there  should  be  enough  votes,  outside  of 
the  Democrats,  with  them,  to  elect  him?— A.  Well,  I  insisted,  and  I 
made  it  a  matter  of  honor,  with  both  of  them,  that  no  roll  call  for 
Mr.  Lorimer’s  election  should  be  started,  and  that  I  would  not  con¬ 
sent  to  a  single  one  of  my  followers  voting  for  him  until  I  became 
sure  that  there  were  enough  with  those  to  elect  him. 

Q.  Were  you  notified  by  Mr.  Lorimer  or  Mr.  Shurtleff  at  any  time 
preceding  the  26th  of  May  that  they  had  a  sufficient  number,  to¬ 
gether  with  the  30  I  believe  you  said  you  thought  you  could  get,  that 
you  promised,  to  elect  him? — A.  Les,  sir. 

Q.  When  were  you  notified  of  that? — A.  Well,  it  was  not  exactly, 
Senator,  a  notification.  As  I  told  you,  we  met  up  in  the  rooms  and 
those  conferences  or  meetings  were  there,  and  while  we  thought  we 
had  enough  on  the  24th— we  thought  we  did  have  enough  on  the 
24th - 

Q.  Why  didn’t  you  vote  on  the  24th  ?— A.  There  was  no  session  on 
the  24th,  I  recollect,  until  late  in  the  afternoon.  We  thought  we  had 
enough — we  were  sure  we  had  enough  on  the  25th. 

Q.  Why  was  not  the  vote  taken  on  that  day?— A.  Because  we 
wanted  to  make  the  assurance  doubly  sure,  and  if  we  could,  to  have 
two  or  three  extra,  for  an  extra  big  measure. 

Q.  When  did  you  finally  determine  that  you  would  call  the  ballot 
on  Mr.  Lorimer’s  election  ?— A.  On  Tuesday  night,  May  25. 

Q.  At  that  time  they  assured  you  they  had  enough,  with  the  30 
that  you  thought  you  knew  of,  to  elect  him? — A.  I  did  not  take  the 
assurance.  I  went  over  the  list  myself,  and  I  had  been  investigating 
myself,  independently,  verifying  it,  so  that  I  was  perfectly  satisfied 
myself  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  see  and  confer  with  Republicans  who  were  supposed 
to  be  favorable  to  Lorimer  at  that  time?— A.  Yes;  and  with  others. 

Q.  With  other  Democrats  outside  of  your  faction? — A.  Other  Re¬ 
publicans  and  other  Democrats. 

Q.  You  satisfied  yourself  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  On  the  night  of  the  25th?— A.  I  satisfied  myself,  not  at  that 
particular  time,  but  it  culminated  then. 

Q.  Now,  what  did  you  do,  if  anything,  to  notify  the  men  who  be¬ 
longed  to  your  faction,  whom  you  believed  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lor¬ 
imer,  that  the  vote  would  be  taken  on  the  26th? — A.  Well,  I  can  not 
say  to  you,  Senator,  just  what  course  I  pursued  with  every  one  of 
them.  I  know  the  message  was  carried  in  one  way  or  another  to  each 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  661 

one  of  them  that  the  roll  call  would  be  put  on  the  next  day  for  his 
election,  and  that  it  was  going  to  go  through. 

Q.  You  set  in  motion  some  machinery  by  wdiich  all  of  your  friends 
whom  you  believed  would  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer — I  believe  you  said 
30 — were  notified  that  it  would  be  called  off  on  that  day,  so  that  all 
of  them  would  be  on  hand,  and  it  would  be  called  off  on  that  day,  the 
26th? — A.  Well,  all  of  them  were  on  hand  those  days  all  of  the  time, 
Senator. 

Q.  You  notified  them  that  the  ballot  would  be  taken  on  that  day  ? — 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Or  had  it  done? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  So  that  they  might  be  present  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  There  is  no  question  about  it? — A.  If  anybody  showed  anj^  in¬ 
clination  to  be  away,  anybody  upon  either  side,  in  those  days  his 
presence  was  secured  very  rapidly. 

Q.  In  those  conferences  with  Mr.  Shurtleff  and  Mr.  Lorimer  was 
there  ever  at  any  time  any  suggestion  made  to  you  that  you  or  your 
followers  would  receive  any  benefits  directly  or  indirectly,  any  money, 
any  patronage,  or  anything  else  for  the  activity  that  you  were  show¬ 
ing  in  securing  Mr.  Lorimer’s  election? — A.  None,  absolutely  none, 
Mr.  Senator;  not  any. 

Q.  DidT  anybody  at  any  time  ever  place  any  money  in  your  hands 
to  be  used  for  campaign  purposes  or  otherwise,  either  before  or  after 
Mr.  Lorimer’s  election,  in  consequence  of  that? — A.  Not  a  penny. 

Q.  Did  you  handle  any  of  that? — A.  Not  a  nickel. 

Q.  Did  anybody  ever  contribute  anything  to  your  defense  in  these 
suits  as  a  result  of  that? — A.  The  question  again,  please. 

Q.  Read  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  Not  a  cent. 

Q.  These  suits,  or  these  prosecutions  that  you  have  been  in - A. 

Not  a  cent  as  the  result  of  anvthing  like  that. 

Q.  Has  anybody  ever  contributed  anything  at  all? — A.  Oh,  yes; 

ves. 

*/  m 

Q.  Your  friends  have  contributed  to  your  defense? — A.  Yes.  If 
they  had  not,  Mr.  Senator,  I  could  not  have  been  defended,  Mr. 
Senator. 

Q.  Was  your  defense  expensive? — A.  My  defense  has  been  made 
very  expensive,  not  only  a  white  man’s  burden,  but  more  than  that. 

Q.  But  nobody  has  ever  given  you  any  money,  and  you  never  han¬ 
dled  any  money,  either  for  campaign  purposes  or  otherwise,  as  a 
result  of  your  aid  in  Senator  Lorimer’s  election? — A.  Not  one  dollar, 
nor  have  I  received  any  favor  of  any  kind  by  reason  thereof,  to  my 
knowledge. 

Q.  Well,  you  would  know  if  you  did? — A.  I  think  I  would. 

Q.  Was  it  your  judgment,  Mr.  Browne,  that  it  was  a  better  and 
wiser  political  movement  to  elect  Mr.  Lorimer,  a  Republican,  by  the 
aid  of  Democratic  votes  than  to  allow  the  session  to  terminate  without 
the  election  of  a  Senator  at  all? — A.  I  thought  so. 

Q.  And  that  was  your  deliberate  judgment? — A.  That  was  my 
judgment  ;  I  may  have  been  in  error,  but  that  was  my  judgment. 

Q.  You  were  not  induced  to  reach  that  judgment,  were  you,  by  any 
offer  of  any  sort  to  you  or  any  of  your  friends,  in  any  form  ? — A.  No, 


662  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Senator,  not  even  with  added  political  individual  political  suc¬ 
cess  in  view.  I  tried  to  see  what  I  believed  was  for  the  best  interests 
of  the  State  and  of  my  party.  That  is  what  I  tried  to  see ;  I  might 
have  been  in  error  in  it, 

Q.  How  did  Mr.  Lorimer  stand  personally  with  the  Democrats  in 
the  legislature — I  do  not  refer  to  his  political  alignments — but  did 
he  or  not  have  personal  friends  in  the  legislature,  on  the  Democratic 
side,  who  were  primarily  favorable  to  him,  barring  his  political 
views? — A.  Men  that  would  have  voted  for  him  as  soon  as  his  name 
was  mentioned  as  a  candidate,  independent  of  party,  party  leaders, 
or  anybody  else. 

Q.  Where  were  those  men  from;  what  section  of  the  State? — A. 
I  can  name  a  few  to  you. 

Q.  I  would  be  glad  to  have  you  do  so. — A.  Anton  J.  Cermak,  now 
one  of  the  aldermen  of  the  city  of  Chicago  and  very  prominent  in 
Bohemian  circles  here,  probably  the  most  prominent  Bohemian  in 
town,  and  a  life-long  Democrat;  Emanuel  Abrahams,  of  the  Ghetto 
district,  on  the  west  side;  Joseph  Geskovich,  now  dead;  and  I  could 
go  through  the  list  and.  I  presume,  recall  others;  but  he  had  a  great 
many  warm,  personal  friends  on  his  side. 

Q.  I  don’t  quite  hear  you. — A.  I  say  he  had  a  number  of  warm, 
personal  friends  on  the  Democratic  side. 

Q.  Had  Mr.  Lorimer  taken  any  position,  with  respect  to  any 
political  question  or  semipolitical  questions,  that  appealed  in  any 
respect  to  the  Democrats  of  the  legislature,  do  you  know,  preceding 
his  election? — A.  Why,  except  the  indefatigable  work  he  did  upon 
the  waterway  proposition,  that  won  him  many  friends  on  both  sides. 
But  I  attributed  it  more — if  you  will  pardon  me  for  this  kind  of 
talk — I  attributed  it  more  to  his  personality  and  the  life  he  has  lived 
in  Chicago  and  his  friendship  with  the  masses. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  there  was  any  Republican,  whose  name  was 
suggested  to  the  legislature,  who  could  have  united  the  Democrats 
and  the  Republicans,  except  Mr.  Lorimer,  at  that  time? — A.  No,  sir; 
I  do  not,  I  think  there  were  other  Republicans  whose  names  were 
suggested,  notably  Mr.  Shurtleff,  who  could  have  polled  a  very 
respectable  Democratic  vote,  but  nothing  like  that  that  Mr.  Lorimer 
got. 

Q.  Was  there  any  effort  made  at  any  time  by  you  or  those  associ¬ 
ated  with  you  on  the  Democratic  side  to  secure  the  votes  of  the  Re- 
publicans  for  any  Democrat,  except  Mr.  Stringer? — A.  No,  sir;  no, 
sir — well  you  say  “  anybody  else?  ”  Well,  now.  I  can  not  say  that, 
to  my  knowledge,  now.  I  certainly  made  no  effort  myself. 

Q.  You  were  willing  for  the  Republicans  to  proselyte  from  the 
Democrats,  but  you  were  not  willing  for  the  Democrats  to  proselyte 
from  the  Republicans? — A.  Not  for  all  I  know,  except  I  may  have 
given  a  complimentary  vote  to  Edward  Shurtleff ;  I  did  not  desert 
the  Democratic  standard  until  the  final  day. 

Q.  Well,  was  there  any  effort  made  by  you  or  any  one  of  your 
associates  in  the  legislature  to  induce  any  Republican  members  to 
agree  upon  any  Democrat — to  go  over  to  the  Democratic  side — not  for 
Mr.  Stringer,  but  for  any  other  man  whose  name  might  be  suggested, 
in  the  State,  as  a  Democrat? — A.  No;  because  there  was  no  man  taken 
seriously;  no  man  whose  name  was  presented  that  either  took  it  seri¬ 
ously  himself  or  would  permit  anybody  else  to  take  it  seriously. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  663 

They  were  all  complimentary  votes.  Mr.  Stringer  did  not  take  him¬ 
self  seriously,  if  I  may  be  pardoned  for  saying  so.  He  was  holding 
a  Deneen  job  at  the  time. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  holding  a  Deneen  job  ? — A.  He  was  hold¬ 
ing  the  minority  membership  on  the  court  of  claims,  an  appointee 
of  Governor  Deneen. 

Judge  Hanecy.  At  what  salary? — A.  I  think  two  thousand  a  year, 
but  I  am  not  sure  as  to  that. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Browne,  at  the  time  that  you  went  to  St. 
Louis  on  the  21st  of  June,  at  which  time  I  believe  you  stated  you 
met  Mr.  Link  and  Mr.  Beckemeyer  and  Mr.  Shephard  and  other 
gentlemen,  members  of  the  legislature,  did  you  at  that  time  have  in 
your  possession  or  did  you  distribute  any  money  to  any  of  those 
gentlemen  for  any  purpose? — A.  The  only  money  I  had,  Mr.  Sena¬ 
tor,  was  what  I  thought  I  would  have  to  have  for  my  personal 
expenses,  and  that  was  not  much. 

Q.  Did  you  pay  any  one  of  them  any  money  at  all  for  any  pur¬ 
pose? — A.  I  certainly  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  at  any  time  pay  anybody  any  money  as  a  result 
of  their  having  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer  or  to  induce  them  to  vote  for 
Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Not  a  nickel;  not  a  nickel. 

Senator  Burrows.  Does  any  other  member  of  the  committee  desire 
to  ask  questions?  Judge,  do  you? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Browne,  you  said  that  Mr.  ShurtlefT  talked 
with  you  about  voting  for  Mr.  William  Lorimer  for  United  States 
Senator,  because  he  wanted  to  defeat  the  then  Senator,  Mr.  Hop¬ 
kins? — A.  No;  he  didn’t  sav  because  of  that;  that  was  mentioned. 
He  did  not  want  to  see  Senator  Hopkins  elected. 

Q.  Mr.  Shurtleff  was  from  Senator  Hopkins’s  congressional  dis¬ 
trict,  wasn’t  he? — A.  Well,  now,  you  will  have  to  stop  and  let  me 
think  about  that.  Yes. 

Q.  That  is  the  district? — A.  Yes;  that  is  the  “shoe-string”  dis¬ 
trict. 

Q.  That  is  the  district  that  Senator  Hopkins  did  represent  in 
Congress  before  he  wras  elected  United  States  Senator? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Shurtleff  and  Mr.  Hopkins  were  not  friendly  at  all,  wTere 
they? — A.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  very  bitter  toward  each  other. 

Senator  Burrows.  Who  was  that? — A.  Mr.  Shurtleff  and  Senator 
Hopkins. 

Judge  Hanecy.  They  were  very  bitter  toward  each  other,  did  you 
say? — A.  Yes;  that  is,  that  was  my  information  from  what  I  heard 
from  Mr.  Shurtlelf  personally  and  what  I  knew  generally. 

Q,  How  long  has  it  been  since  there  was  a  Democratic  majority  in 
the  joint  session  of  the  legislature  of  Illinois? — A.  Not  since  the 
election  of  John  M.  Palmer. 

Q.  That  was  when?  Thirty  or  forty  years  ago? — A.  No — that 
must  have  been,  I  believe,  around  1890  somewhere,  was  it  not? 

Q.  John  M.  Palmer? — A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Oh,  no. 

Senator  Gamble.  Mr.  Palmer  I  think  was  in  1891. 

Mr.  Austrian.  1892. 

Senator  Gamble.  There  was  a  coincidence  in  his  election  and  the 
election  of  United  States  Senator  at  that  time  in  our  State;  that  is 
why  I  recall  it. 


664  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

The  WlTN  ESS.  It  was  right  around  1890. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  was  at  the  election  that  elected  the  members  : 
of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  there  was  a  governor  of  Illinois  ! 
and  a  President  of  the  United  States  elected,  wasn’t  there?  Wasn’t 
that  at  the  presidential  election? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  there  was  a  difference  of  a  hundred — nearly  two  him  fired 
thousand,  156,000  votes  betiveen  the  presidential  vote  and  the  gov- 
ernorial  vote,  wasn’t  there? — A.  Well,  we  think  there  was  a  good  deal 
more  than  that,  but  you  would  not  let  us  open  the  ballots. 

Q.  When  you  say  “  we  ”  you  mean  the  Democrats?  Still,  there 
was  a  Republican  legislature  elected;  that  is  right,  is  it  not? — A.  : 
That  is  correct. 

Q.  Mr.  Adlai  T.  Stevenson  was  the  Democratic  nominee  for  gov¬ 
ernor  at  that  election? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  he  was  the  former  Vice-President  of  the  United  States? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  has  a  son,  a  young  man,  or  man  in  middle  life  ? — A.  Two  of 
them. 

Q.  How  old? — A.  Oh,  I  think  James  Stevenson - 

Senator  Burrows.  How  is  that  material? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  propose  to  show,  Mr.  Chairman — Mr.  Senator 
Frazier,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  call  the  members  by  name,  wanted 
to  know  if  any  other  Democrats  had  taken  any  part  in  advising  or 
helping  to  elect  William  Lorimer  United  States  Senator,  and  I  pro¬ 
pose  to  show  that  the  former  Democratic  Vice-President’s  son  did 
take  that  active  part. 

Senator  Frazier.  What  I  asked  the  witness  was  whether  he  had 
advised  with  other  Democratic  statesmen  in  this  State  between  the 
time  the  matter  was  suggested  to  him  by  Mr.  Shurtleff  and  the  time 
he  made  Tip  his  mind. 

The  Witness.  That  is  the  way  I  understood  the  question. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Was  the  purpose  here  to  know  whether  it  was  a 
movement  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Browne  and  his  friends - 

Senator  Frazier.  The  purpose  of  it  was  to  find  out  the  facts. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  ask  this  question  for,  if 
I  may  lie  permitted  so  to  do. 

Senator  Burrows.  Put  the  question 

(Question  read:  “Q.  How  old?”) 

A.  I  was  just  thinking.  I  told  you  he  had  two  boys.  There  were 
two  Stevensons,  Adlai  Stevenson  and  a  brother,  I  think  now.  I  am 
not  sure  whether  those  boys  that  I  know  are  the  sons  of  Adlai  Steven¬ 
son  or  not;  if  they  are,  James  Stevenson,  the  oldest,  must  be  a  little 
older  than  I  am. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  we  would  not  guess  how  old  you  are. — A.  I 
am  44. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  think  this  question — — 

Judge  Hanecy.  All  I  want  is  a  general  inquiry. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  ages  of  the  entire  ticket  I  do  not  think  is 
necessary  just  at  this  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  they  are  men,  grown,  over  age? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  they  show  any  activity  or  take  any  active  part  in  the  elec¬ 
tion  of  a  Republican  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  Well,  I  might 
have  known  it  from  time  to  time  at  the  time ;  I  do  not  recall  it  now. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  665 

There  were  so  many  people  that  were  taking  an  interest  in  it  down 
there,  Judge  Hanecy,  both  Republicans  and  Democrats,  that  to  enu¬ 
merate  their  names  would  take  me  probably  half  the  afternoon. 
The  State’s  attorney  of  this  county  was  very  actively  engaged  at  that 
time  in  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer,  for  one. 

Q.  He  is  a  Republican? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  do  not  claim  him  as  a  Democrat. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anything  further,  Judge? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That,  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Paynter.  Did  any  Republican  members  vote  for  Mr. 
Stringer,  the  Democratic  candidate? — A.  I  don’t  think  so. 

Q.  Did  they  vote  for  any  other  Democrat  during  the  session  of  the 
legislature? — A.  No;  I  don’t  think  so. 

Senator  Paynter.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Browne - 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  ask  one  more  question.  I  do  not  think  the 
record  shows  it. 

Q.  What  was  the  majority,  the  Republican  majority,  in  the  joint 
session  ?— A.  I  can  not  tell  you  that. 

Q.  About  ? — A.  I  can  not  tell  you  how  many  Democrats  there  were 
in  the  Senate.  I  think  there  were  only  13  Democrats  in  the  senate 
and  there  w7ere  51  members;  and  64  Democrats  in  the  house  and  153* 
now,  64  and  13  would  be  77,  and  77  from  204. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Paynter.  Mr.  Browne,  I  believe  I  will  ask  you  the  further 
question:  Did  Republicans,  any  one  or  any  number  of  them  offer  to 
vote  for  any  Democrat  for  United  States  Senator  ?— A.  No,  no. 

Q.  Did  they  hold  out  any  hope  to  you  that  they  would  do  so  if  a 
Democrat  could  be  elected? — A.  No;  because  there  was  no  Democrat 
who  was  making  any  real  effort  to  be  elected,  Senator.  I  will  say  to 

you  now  that  if  there  had  been  any  chance  to  elect  a  Democrat _ any 

chance,  I  sa}r,  and  that  is  just  what  I  mean — that  I  not  only  would  not 
liave  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer,  but  I  would  have  done  my  best  to 
leep  any  other  Democrat  from  voting  for  him. 

Senator  Paynter.  That  is  all  I  desired  to  ask. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Mr.  Browne,  you  were  about  the  third  Demo- 
mat  on  roll  call  in  the  house,  weren’t  you? — A.  Let  me  see,  I  can 
tell  you  in  just  a  moment.  [Witness  examines  memorandum  book.] 

[  am  the  eighth. 

Q.  As  minority  leader,  I  suppose  your  vote  would  be  taken  as  a 
mitenon  on  strictly  party  questions,  to  those  who  should  follow  you, 
is  to  party  policy  in  voting?— A.  Well,  in  this  transaction,  I  might 
.ay  the  bell  wether,  so  to  speak,  was  Manny  Abrahams— Emanual 
\braham.  He  is  the  first  on  the  list,  you  will  see,  the  first  Democrat; 
ind  he  was  a  very  strong  and  staunch  adherent  of  mine,  and,  whether 
ight  or  wrong,  he  believed  what  I  did  was  right,  and  whenever  they 
aw  Manny  Abrahams — those  that  wanted  to  know  how  I  was  going  to 
rote— saw  Manny  Abrahams  vote  one  way,  that  settled  it. 

Q.  And  he  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  suppose  you  had  an  understanding  with  Mr.  Abrahams  that  he 
vas  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer?— A.  Oh,  yes:  with  all  of  them— 
vith  all  of  them. 


666  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  criterion? — A.  Well,  it  was  understood  befor< 
the  roll  was  called  at  all  that  morning  by  them  all,  those  of  m3 
crowd. 

Senator  Heyburn.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Abrahams  would  have  voted  for  Senator  Lorimej 
over  your  protest,  wouldn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  without  regard  to  your  wishes? — A.  I  think  he  would  haw 
done  that,  and  that  would  have  been  a  good  deal  for  him  because  h( 
and  I  were  pretty  close  friends. 

Q.  The  Tippet  Democrats  in  the  house  did  not  follow  Abrahams 
vote  or  your  vote,  did  they? — A.  No;  they  tried  to  go  the  other  way 
generally. 

Q.  And  they  did  not  follow  his  vote  or  advice,  or  your  vote  or  ad 
vice  in  any  respect,  did  they  ? — A.  Oh,  no,  no. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Abrahams  is  the  man  who  runs  the  saloon  ii 
Chicago  is  he  not  ? — A.  I  told  you  that. 

Q.  The  same  Abrahams? — A.  .The  same  Abrahams. 

Q.  Abrahams  is  the  man  whom  Mr.  Beckemeyer  went  to  see  wher 
he  came  up  here  the  first  time,  isn't  he? — A.  I  am  so  informed. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  no  Republican  coulc 
have  been  elected  except  Mr.  Lorimer.  Did  I  understand  you  cor 
rectly — to  the  United  States  Senate? — A.  I  didn’t  say  that. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  say  in  your  opinion  no  Republican  could  have  beei 
elected  ? — A.  No ;  I  didn’t  say  that, 

Q.  Well,  in  your  opinion  could  any  Republican - — A.  I  die 

say  that  none  of  the  Republicans  whose  names  were  mentioned  could 
in  my  opinion,  have  amalgamated  the  Democratic  and  Republicai 
votes — that  was  in  answer  to  Senator  Frazier — sufficiently  to  elect 
I  did  say  earlier  in  my  examination,  Mr.  Austrian,  that  the  Dem 
ocrats  had  gotten  to  a  condition  by  that  time,  where  they  would  havi 
voted  for  any  good,  conscientious,  honest,  capable,  and  popula: 
Republican. 

Q.  Any  more  qualifications  required? — A.  I  think  I  put  those  al 
in,  in  the  first  place. 

Q.  And  there  was  only  one  such  man,  was  there? — A.  Why;  I  an 
not  a  modern  Diogenes  at  all,  but  I  believe  that  Mr.  Lorimer  is  tha 
kind  of  a  man  or  I  would  not  have  voted  for  him,  I  presume - 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  man  possessing  the  qualifications? — A. 
presume  the  State  of  Illinois  has  lots  of  them. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  man  whose  name  was  prominently  men 
tioned  as  a  possible  candidate  or  as  a  probable  candidate  for  L  nitec 
States  Senator  on  the  Republican  side,  who  could  have  been  elected  ?- 
A.  None  of  them  seemed  popular  enough  to  develop  any  strength. 

Q.  Could  not  Mr.  Deneen  have  been  elected? — A.  Well.  I  don 
know.  Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  he  could  at  tha 
time,  to  get  him  out  of  the  wav. 

Q.  Well,  whatever  the  purpose  was,  in  your  opinion,  he  could  havi 
been  elected ;  is  that  right? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Well,  that  was  Mr.  Lorimer’s  opinion  was  it  not? — A.  I  don 
know  what  his  opinion  was.  You  are  asking  for  mine;  I  told  yoi 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  perhaps  Mr.  Deneen  could  have  been.  # 

Q.  And  you  never  heard  Mr.  Lorimer  express  the  opinion,  hi 
opinion,  that  Mr.  Deneen  could  have  been  elected? — A.  No;  I  don 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  667 

think  that  I  did.  I  did  know,  however,  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  at  one 
time  endeavoring  to  persuade  Governor  Deneen  to  be  a  candidate,  and 
I  had  understood  that  Governor  Deneen  had  consented  to  be  a  candi¬ 
date,  and  there  was  some  discussion  as  to  whether  he  could  get  any 
Democratic  votes. 

Q.  You  would  not  have  been  with  him,  would  you? — A.  No;  Mr. 
Austrian,  I  do  not  think  I  would. 

Q.  None  of  your  Democratic  followers,  with  your  consent? — A. 
Well,  I  don’t  know.  I  did  not  feel  very  kindly  toward  Governor 
Deneen. 

Q.  Well  I  say,  none  of  your  Democratic  followers,  with  your  con¬ 
sent? — A.  Well,  I  say,  I  did  not  feel  very  kindly  toward  him.  but 
if  his  election  as  Senator  would  have  eliminated  him,  I  don’t  know. 
I  doubt  if  I  could  have  voted  for  him  myself  but  I  am  afraid  I  would 
not  have  tried  to  stop  anybody  else. 

Q.  Mr.  Browne,  now  I  forgot  to  ask  you,  at  least  I  think  I  forgot 
it.  At  this  meeting  in  St.  Louis  when  you  were  present  Charles  Luke 
tvas  there,  wasn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  have  referred  to  Mr.  Stringer  as  being  simply  a  sort 
if  a  will-of-the-wisp  candidate. — A.  No ;  I  have  not  referred  to  him 
n  any  such  way.  Lie  is  a  man  for  whom  I  have  the  highest  personal 
regard ;  he  is  a  man  of  ability ;  he  is  one  of  the  most  able  men  on  the 
Democratic  side  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  mean  to  say  that  simply  because  he  holds  a 
ninority  appointment  on  the  Court  of  Claims,  and  by  minority  ap¬ 
pointment  that  is  an  appointment  given  to  the  minority  parity,  is 
hat  correct? — A.  I  don’t  know  what  your  question  is. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  a  minority  appointment? — A.  I  mean 
lust  what  I  say. 

Q.  We  are  not  politicians,  some  of  us? — A.  That  does  not  require 
tny  political  intelligence. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  a  minority  appointment? — A.  A  Democratic  ap¬ 
pointment  when  a  Republican  is  in  power  or  a  Republican  when  the 
Democrats  are  in  power. 

Q.  The  mere  fact  that  a  man  holds  a  minority  appointment  does 
lot  mean  that  he  is  affiliated  with  the  party  in  power  at  all,  does  it? — 
V.  No,  sir;  but  I  have  always  noticed  this  thing  to  be  true  that  the 
ninority  members  upon  all  state  boards  have  a  peculiar  inclination 
o  consult  the  wishes  of  the  creator  of  those  boards. 

Q.  You  tried  to  get  minority  appointments  for  your  followers?— 
Y  Yes. 

Q.  Including  yourself? — A.  Not  for  myself,  no. 

Q.  Then,  for  your  followers,  you  didn’t  think  that  was  a  reflection 
>n  them  in  any  way? — A.  No;  I  did  not  think  it  was  a  reflection;  I 
hought  if  there  were  minority  appointments  to  be  had  that  our 
:rowd  and  my  crowd  was  as  much  entitled  to  them  as  the  other 
ellows. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  on  the  26th  of  May,  1909,  when  Mr.  Lorimer 
vas  elected  United  States  Senator,  there  were  only  three  candidates 
oted  for,  weren’t  there? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Stringer  got  all  the  Democrat  votes  that  had  not  gone 
o  Mr.  Lorimer,  didn’t  he? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Hopkins  got  all  the  Republican  votes  that  had  not 
'one  to  Mr.  Lorimer,  didn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


668  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanect.  Mr. - 

The  Witness.  I  want  to  say,  in  connection  with  this  question  tha1. 
was  asked  me,  I  do  not  want  to  go  away  leaving  any  impression  tha 
I  am  trying  to  say  anything  derogatory  of  Lawrence  B.  Stringer 
He  is  a  personal  friend  of  mine  and  I  hold  him  in  the  highest  estima 
tion,  but  I  simply  say — and  it  is  not  derogatory — I  simply  say  thal 
lie  did  not  take  himself  seriously  as  a  candidate  for  United  State 
Senator;  he  did  not  act  that  way,  and  his  friends  did  not  act  tha' 
way.  He  had  no  hope  or  expectation  of  being  elected  and  knew  tha 
he  "could  not  be  elected.  And  I  do  feel — I  do  feel,  and  think  I  an 
warranted  in  feeling — that  he  endeavored  to  prevent  the  Democratic 
votes  from  going  to  Senator  Lorimer,  so  that  Mr.  Deneen  would  con 
trol  the  situation  senatoriallv. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  forgot  to  ask  you  one  question,  Mr.  Browne 
There  were  two  roll  calls  on  the  joint  session  that  day,  weren' 
there? — A.  What  do  you  mean  by  two  roll  calls? 

Q.  Well,  first  for  a  quorum  and  then  upon  the  ballot  for  Unitec 
States  Senator? — A.  There  always  is. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  that  day  whether  or  not  there  were  two  rol 
calls? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  first  roll  call  of  the  joint  session,  did  you  make  e 
speech? — A.  On  the  first  roll  call? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Xo. 

Q.  Did  you  make  a  speech  before  the  balloting  began? — A.  Xo. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  a  speech  with  reference  to  the  beginning  o: 
the  ballot  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  After  the  senate  roll  hac 
been  called.  You  must  understand  that  the  senate  is  called  first  bj 
the  president  of  the  senate — he  is  the  Lieutenant-Governor — in  this 
State.  Then  the  roll  call  of  the  house  is  had  immediately  upon  the 
conclusion  of  the  roll  call  of  the  senate,  and  as  Mr.  Shurtleff  tool 
the  gavel  to  order,  and  did  order,  the  roll  call  of  the  house  to  proceec 
through  the  clerk,  I  arose  at  my  place  and  got  recognition  from  tin 
chair  and  made  the  speech  you  referred  to,  or  the  talk. 

Q.  Before  any  vote  had  been  cast  in  the  house? — A.  Before  am 
vote  had  been  cast. 

Q.  Just  in  the  house? — A.  Before  any  votes  of  the  house  member: 
had  been  cast  on  the  occasion,  on  the  question  of  Senator. 

Q.  That  is  right.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Johnston.  Did  you  announce  in  the  speech  that  you  in 
tended  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  ? — A.  I  did,  Senator. 

Judge  Hanecy.  One  of  the  honorable  senators  asked  you  if  then 
was  any  political  or  semipolitical  matter  before  the  people  of  Illi¬ 
nois  that  did  or  might  induce — I  might  not  be  using  the1  languag* 
exactly — a  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer.  Did  William  Lorimer  tak< 
an  active  part  in  the  deep-waterwav  matter  prior  to  his  candidacy 
for  United  States  Senator? — A.  Oh,  yes;  he  has  been  in  this  State 
he  has  been  father,  mother,  and  wet  nurse  of  that  proposition.  H< 
has  been  the  whole  thing  on  the  deep-waterway  proposition,  and  lit 
has  endeared  himself  to  a  great  many  people,  irrespective  of  politics 
that  want  to  see  that  waterway  go  through. 

Q.  He  has  endeared  himself  to  Democrats  as  well  as  Republican- 
down  in  the  State,  as  well  as  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State? — A 
Yes,  everywhere. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  669 

Q.  And  that  campaign  was  made  by  Mr.  Lorimer  when? — A.  Oh, 
t  has  been  made  for  years. 

Q.  Well,  when  was  it  made  with  reference  to  his  candidacy  or  the 
ime  he  was  elected  United  States  Senator? — A.  All  of  it  before. 

Q.  Right  down  to  that  time? — A.  Yes,  and  still,  as  I  understand. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  other  witnesses? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Simmons. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Simmons  will  be  called. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Austrian,  may  I  trouble  you  for  that  exhibit  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes.  [Exhibit  handed  to  Judge  Hanecy.] 

Charles  H.  Simmons,  a  witness  called  herein,  having  been  first 
luly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows  and  examined  by  Judge  Hanecy, 
estified  as  follows : 

Q.  Mr.  Simmons,  what  is  your  full  name? — A.  Charles  H. 
Simmons. 

Q.  What  is  your  business,  occupation,  or  profession? — A.  Engi- 
leer  and  contractor;  heating  engineer  and  contractor. 

Q.  Here  in  Chicago? — A.  Chicago. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  Chicago? — A.  About  thirty  years. 

Q.  The  last  thirty  years? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Won’t  you  talk  and  not  motion  with  your  head,  Mr.  Sim- 
nons? — A.  The  last  thirty  years. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  ? — A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Charles  A.  White,  by  sight? — A.  I  have  seen 

lim. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  Briggs  House  in  Chicago  on  the  17th  of  June, 
909? — A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  a  conversation  or  see  anything  that  occurred 
>etween  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  and  Charles  A.  White? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  it,  about? — A.  Between  12  and  half 
>ast,  at  noon. 

Q.  Where  did  it  occur? — A.  In  the  office,  or  rotunda,  of  the  Briggs 
louse. 

Q.  Out  in  the  public  rotunda? — A.  Yes  sir;  out  in  the  public 
otunda. 

Q.  Now,  what  did  you  see  there? — A.  I  saw  Mr.  Browne  and  Mr. 
Vhite  step  aside  from  some  other  gentlemen  and  heard  the  following 
onversation :  “  I  am  going  home,”  Mr.  White  said - 

Q.  Who  said  that? — A.  Mr.  White  said,  “I  am  going  home  and  I 
in  broke.  Can  you  let  me  have  a  little  money?  ”  Mr.  Browne  said, 
I  haven’t  got  much.  How  much  do  you  want?”  I  did  not  hear 
he  answer,  but  he  took  out  some  money  out  of  his  pocket  and  handed 
iim  a  few  $5  bills,  about  $25.  Mr.  White  says  “Good-bye,”  and 
rent  out.  Mr.  Browne  returned  to  the  other  gentleman  and  was 
round  there  for  a  few  minutes  afterwards. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  there,  Mr.  Simmons? — A.  I  went  there 
o  see  a  gentleman  that  I  supposed  was  at  the  Briggs  House  by  the 
tame  of  Walsh.  On  the  following  day  I  had  a  meeting  of  the 
•oard  of  directors  of  a  newT  company  that  I  was  forming,  and  I  had 
nderstood  that  this  Mr.  Walsh  had  been  successful  in  his  operations 


670  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

in  the  West  and  wanted  him  for  a  director,  and  went  there  for  that 
purpose. 

Q.  Had  you  any  acquaintance  with  either  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  oi 
Charles  A.  White  previous  to  that  time;  I  mean,  any  personal  ac¬ 
quaintance  with  them? — A.  No,  sir;  I  had  not. 

Q.  You  testified  as  a  witness  in  the  Browne  trial  in  the  criminal 
court  of  this  county,  did  you? — A.  I  did. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  any  examination? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  one  moment.  Yes. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Q.  Mr.  Simmons,  you  were  not  indicted  by  any  special  grand  jury 
in  Cook  County,  were  you  ? — A.  Pardon. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Bead  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Simmons,  will  you  tell  us  what  your  business  is,  all 
of  it  ? — A.  Heating  engineer  and  contractor. 

Q.  Have  you  any  side  issues,  any  other  business,  any  other  than  the 
one  you  have  indicated? — A.  I  have  been  trying  to  establish  a  new 
business  in  the  last  few  years,  manufacturing  business. 

Q.  Have  you  been  engaged  in  the  horse  business? — A.  No,  sir;  not 
in  the  horse  business ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  in  race  track,  the  running  of  race  horses,  or  betting  on 
them  ? — A.  I  have  bet  on  race  horses ;  yes. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  been  engaged  in  that  business? — A.  I  do  not 
understand  really  what  you  mean  by  that. 

Q.  What  has  been  your  entire  connection  with  the  race-track  busi¬ 
ness  or  race-horse  business,  if  any  ? — A.  I  have  never  owned  any  race 
horses. 

Q.  No;  well,  tell  us  what  connection  you  have  ever  had. — A.  I 
have  bet  a  little  money  once  in  a  while  on  race  horses. 

Q.  And  you  have  been  engaged  in  other  transactions  involving  the 
running  of  race  horses  on  race  tracks,  haven’t  you? — A.  No;  not  par¬ 
ticularly. 

Q.  Weren’t  you  a  partner  of  Mr.  Farley? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  interested  in  the  games  that  he  was  engaged  in  around  Chi¬ 
cago  eight  years  ago? — A.  I  was  paid  by  Mr.  Farley  to  look  after 
his  interests  here  when  you  were  on  the  other  side  of  a  conspiracy  sim¬ 
ilar  to  this  one. 

Q.  Farley  was  the  man  who  was  indicted  in  Detroit,  Mich.; 
who  ran  ringers  on  the  Detroit  track,  wasn’t  he  ? — A.  He  was. 

Q.  And  he  came  down  here,  with  your  assistance  and  cooperation, 
and  tried  to  close  up  the  race  tracks  of  Chicago,  didn’t  he,  and  made 
raids  and  caused  raids  to  be  made  on  the  race  tracks  of  Chicago, 
didn’t  he? — A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  I  appeared  for  the  race  tracks  and  prevented  you  and 
Farley  from  closing  them,  didn’t  1? — A.  You  did  not  prevent  me. 

Q.  And  you  never  did  close  them? — A.  I  didn’t  have  anything  to 
do  with  closing  them. 

Q.  Didn’t  you,  since  that  time,  engage  in  the  same  occupation  with 
Farley  of  running  ringers  on  race  tracks? — A.  I  never  ran  a  ringer, 
and  I  never  was  with  Farley  on  a  race  track. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  671 

Q.  Didn’t  you,  within  the  last  four  months,  endeavor  to  put  over 
some  kind  of  a  job  at  the  race  track  at  Jacksonville,  Fla.  ? — A.  I  never 
have  been  there  in  my  life. 

Q.  It  is  not  necessary  to  be  there  to  have  those  operations,  is  it?— 
A.  And  I  haven’t  done  anything  with  anv  race  horses  since  1903. 

Q.  That  was  your  last,  was  it?— A.  Tliat  is  my  last. 

Q.  Mr.  Simmons,  in  the  year,  1909,  you  did  not  know  Mr.  Browne, 
or  White,  did  you?— A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  J  ou  had  never  seen  either  one  of  them  to  know  them,  had  you  ? _ 

Y  Not  to  know  them  personally;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Or  to  know  them  by  reputation? — A.  No. 

Q.  Either  Browne  or  White,  and  by  Browne,  I  mean  Lee  O’Neil 

Browne,  and  by  WThite,  I  mean  Charles  A.  White.  Is  that  correct? _ 

A  That  is  correct. 

Q.  Now,  some  day  in  May,  or  June  rather,  1909,  you  got  a  mys¬ 
terious  call  to  come  to  the  Briggs  House,  did  you  ? — A.  I  eot  a  call 
o  go  to  the  Briggs  House.  ^ 

Q.  You  did  not  know  who  from? — A.  Not  exactly;  no. 

Q.  And  you  went  down  to  the  Briggs  House — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  go  up  to  thg  desk  ? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  the  man  whom  you  said  called  you,  or  from  whom 
he  call  purported  to  come,  for  you  to  come  to  the  Briggs  House?— 

A  I  did. 

Q.  When? — A.  About  three  months  afterwards. 

Q„  But  he  never  showed  up  at  the  Briggs  House,  so  far  as  you 
mow,  prior  to  that  day?— A.  No;  I  don’t  know  that  he  did. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  your  man’s  name?— A.  That  man’s  name  was 

Yalsh. 

Q.  That  was  the  same  man  that  you  went  to  see  on  this  date  in 
Tune? — A.  Exactly. 

Q.  How  do  you  fix  the  time  that  it  was  the  17th  of  June? _ A.  The 

ollowing  day,  on  the  18th,  was  the  day  we  had  our  first  record  meet- 
ng  of  the  company. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Browne,  will  you  just  show  this  committee  what 
•ccurred  when  you  came  in  the  rotunda  of  the  Briggs  House  between 
Irowne  and  White? — A.  I  can  not  show  them  because  I  can  not  imi- 
ate  both  Browne  and  White  and  myself,  but  I  can  tell  it. 

Q.  J  ou  just  show  what  Browne  did  with  reference  to  the  money, 
le  did  something,  didn’t  he?— A.  He  did;  he  took  the  money  out  of 
us  pocket. 

Q.  Show  us  how  he  took  the  money  out  of  his  pocket. — A.  Have 
ou  got  a  roll  of  bills  with  you? 

Q.  Yes;  always  carry  them. — A.  We  may  as  well  act  it  all  out.  I 
ame  into  the  Briggs  House;  of  course,  T  was  going  north,  and  as  I 

ame  in  these  two  gentlemen,  whom  I  did  not  know  at  that  time _ 

Senator  Frazier.  Had  you  ever  seen  either  one  of  them  before? _ _ 

l.  Not  as  I  know  of.  \  hey  stepped  aside  and  had  the  conversation. 
Mr.  Austrian.  What  conversation?  Go  on,  give  us  the  conver¬ 
sion.— A.  “  I  am  going  home,”  White  said  to  Browne,  “  and  I  am 
roke  and  will  you  let  me  have  a  little  money?  ”  He  says,  “  Why, 
haven’t  got  much.  How  much  do  you  want?”  Well,  they  were 
3ming  along  kind  of  paying  attention  to  their  own  business,  and  I 
ad  to  step  aside  a  little  to  get  out  of  their  way.  They  weren’t  pay- 
lg  attention  to  me,  and  as  I  stepped  around  the  other  side  I  looked 


672  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


back  and  I  saw  him  pull  out  money  and  hand  him  what  I  should 
think  was  $25;  pulled  out  of  his  pocket  in  this  manner,  Browne’s 
pocket. 

Q.  You  testified  $25  or  $30  in  $5  bills? — A.  Something  like  that. 

Q.  You  testified  $25  or  $30  in  $5  bills?— A.  Possibly. 

Q.  Was  that  the  fact? — A.  Possibly. 

Q.  What  did  you  testify  ? — A.  I  think  there  was  about  $25  or  $30. 

Q.  In  $5  bills? — A.  He  had  $5  bills.  I  don’t  know  as  they  were 
all  $5  bills. 

Q.  You  saw  $5  bills  there? — A.  I  saw  some  $5  bills  in  that. 

Q.  This  conversation,  you  were  not  interested  in  it? — A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  And  you  never  had  seen  either  one  of  them  before? — -A.  No. 

Q.  And  that  happened  on  the  17th  of  June,  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  never  repeated  it  to  anyone  until  after  the  trial  of 
Lee  O’Neil  Browne  in  1910?— A.  You  are  a  little  speedy. 

Q.  Or  a  little  before  or  rather  after  the  publication? — A.  The 
first  time  that  Lee  O’Neil  Browne’s  picture  was  published  in  the 
paper — that  is,  I  saw  it  published. 

Q.  That  was  in  May,  was  it  not?— A.  I  don’t  know  when  it  was. 

Q.  Was  it  not  after  the  White  exposure?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  in  May,  1910.— A.  I  saw  that  picture  and  I  said  to 
a  man  in  my  office,  “  I  must  have  seen  somebody  of  that  appearance. 
I  know  that  man  and  I  would  know  him  anywhere,”  and  showed  him 
Browne’s  picture.  Well,  then,  after  the  trial,  when  the  jury  was 
out  on  that  trial,  I  had  spoken  to  a  number  about  it  because  I  had 
seen  some  of  the  transaction  in  the  Briggs  House.  Of  course,  I  did 
not  know  what  part  it  was;  I  didn’t  know  what  relation  it  had  to 
any  of  it  because  I  knew  Browne;  he  had  striking  characteristics 
that  anyone  would  know  that  had  any  gift  of  picking  faces  after 
they  had  seen  it.  Then  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Newman,  a  lawyer,  and  had 
quite  a  laugh  over  it.  I  told  Mr.  Ayers,  a  friend  of  mine.  I  knew 
they  were  not  criminal  lawyers,  and  I  didn’t  want  or  care  to  tell 
anybody  that  would  take  it  to  O’Neil  Browne  or  to  court,  because 
I  did  not  hanker  about  being  a  witness  in  any  court  and  spend  my 
time  for  nothing,  and  did  not  want  to  be  there  under  any  circum¬ 
stances.  But  Mr.  Ayers,  it  appears,  was  a  friend  or  acquaintance 
of  Mr.  Browne.  He  telephoned  for  me  to  come  down  there  one  day. 
I  went  down  to  his  offce  and  Mr.  Browne  came  in.  He  asked  me 
if  I  knew  him.  I  said  I  did;  I  knew  him  from  his  picture  and  I 

had  seen  him  at  the  Briggs  House. 

Q.  Where  did  you  ever  hear  the  expression  that  you  spoke  ot, 
that  some  one  was  engaged  in  a  conspiracy?  A.  ."Well,  but  that  was 
a  conspiracy  that  you  spoke  of;  you  brought  up  this  race  track  matter. 
You  know  well  enough  the  Western  Jockey  Club  tried  to  railroad  him 

through -  ,  _  _  . 

Q.  Was  trying  to  what? — A.  To  railroad  that  man  Farley  because 

he  was  too  smart  and  beat  them  out  of  their  money. 

Q.  Where  did  you  hear  the  expression  that  some  one  in  this  pro- 
ceeding  was  engaged  in  a  conspiracy  ? — A.  Oh,  it  is  general  talk, 
you  hear  it  everywhere. 

Q.  On  the  street  corners?— A.  Anywhere  you  go. 

Q.  Everywhere  you  go?— A.  Nearly  everywhere,  yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  673 

Senator  Frazier.  I  believe  you  stated  that  you  had  never  seen  Mr. 
Browne  or  Mr.  White  at  any  time  prior  to  this  occasion  which  you 
have. detailed  ? — A.  That  is  right. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  White? — A.  I  saw  White  on  the  witness 
stand  on  the  North  Side. 

Q.  On  what  occasion? — A.  At  the  trial  of  O’Neil  Browne,  the 
second  trial. 

Q.  That  was  in  May  or  June  of  this  year? — A.  Of  this  year. 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  August. 

Senator  Frazier.  In  August  of  this  year.  Was  that  the  first  time 
you  had  seen  him  from  that  day  when  you  saw  him  and  Browne  ? — A. 
I  had  seen  his  picture  in  the  paper,  but  his  picture  did  not  come  out 
as  clear  and  show  characteristics  you  would  know  it  as  well  as  the 
other  man.  So,  after  Ayers  asked  me  to  go  in  they  asked  me  to  go 
there  and  see  if  it  was  the  same  man,  and  I  did  so. 

Q.  And  you  identified  him  as  being  the  same  man  you  had  seen 
there  with  Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  W  as  Mr.  Browne  at  the  time  you  came  in  and  saw  he  and 

White  stepping  off,  was  he  talking  to  some  other  gentlemen? _ A. 

There  were  some  other  gentlemen  in  the  rotunda  there,  yes.  I  pre¬ 
sume  that  they  had  been  talking  because  they  seemed  to  step  away 
from  a  number,  three  or  four  or  five  men  there. 

Q.  And  they  were  close  enough  to  have  seen  what  occurred  just 
as  well  as  you  ? — A.  I  should  think  so. 

Senator  Frazier.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Judge? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  one  second.  Wlien  you  saw  Browne  and 
White  it  was  about  fourteen  or  fifteen  months  after  this  occurrence, 
was  it  not? — A.  Well,  it  was;  yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  have  no  further  use  for  this  witness? 

Judge  FIanecy.  No,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  \  ou  may  be  excused  from  further  attendance. 
What  next? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  that  is  all  I  have  here,  Mr.  Chairman.  I 
do  not  know  whether  I  will  have  any  others  or  not.  That  is  all  I  have 

here. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  have  you  anyone? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir;  I  have  not.  I  understood  that  Mr.  Holts- 
law  will  be  here  in  the  morning. 

Senator  Joiinston.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understood  that  Mr.  Holtslaw  will  be  here  in  the 
morning. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  you  do  not  want  to  call  any  wit¬ 
ness  at  this  time? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Holstlaw  will  be  here  in  the  morning  at  9 
o’clock.  Will  Mr.  English  be  here  to-morrow? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  is  here  now. 

Senator  Burrows.  But  you  do  not  want  to  put  him  on  at  this  time? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  there  is  no  necessity  for  it  at  this  time. 

70924°— S.  Hep.  942,  61-3 


43 


674  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Holstlaw  will  be  here  in  the  morning  and 
Mr.  English  is  here.  The  committee  would  be  very  glad  if  some  one 
would  advise  us  where  Mr.  Wilson  is. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  like  to  have  a  subpoena  for  J.  W.  Casey, 
101  Washington  street,  who  is  his  business  partner,  and  that  is  the 
way,  in  my  judgment,  to  find  out  where  Mr.  Wilson  is. 

Senator  Frazier.  What  is  his  name? 

Mr.  Austrian.  J.  W.  Casey,  101  Washington  street. 

Senator  Gamble.  Why  couldn't  we  examine  Mr.  English ;  is  there 
any  particular  reason? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  there  is  no  reason,  but  there  is  nothing  he  can 
testify  that  would  throw  light  on  this  controversy  at  this  time ;  noth¬ 
ing  at  all,  absolutely  nothing. 

Senator  Gamble.  You  are  holding  him  expecting  that  other  evi¬ 
dence  will  be  produced? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  that  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  This  memorandum  has  been  handed  me  in  re¬ 
gard  to  Mr.  Wilson,  from  the  sergeant-at-arms.  On  the  evening  of 
the  29th  of  September,  subpoena  issued  and  was  handed  to  the  ser¬ 
geant-at-arms  with  direction  to  immediately  proceed  to  make  service 
thereof.  After  diligent  search  for  information  of  Wilson's  where¬ 
abouts  it  was  concluded  that  further  effort  to  locate  him  in  the  city 
of  Chicago  would  be  useless  and  that  he  would  have  to  be  sought 
elsewhere.  Then  steps  were  taken  to  ascertain  if  inquiry  from  mem¬ 
bers  of  his  family,  his  business  associates,  his  former  attorney,  the 
postal  authorities,  and  Mr.  Austrian  and  his  associates  would  develop 
any  information  of  his  business  trips  in  the  West.  It  is  reported  that 
Wilson,  engaged  in  the  real  estate  business  with  James  W.  Casey,  at 
room  308.  101  Washington  street,  Chicago,  is  now,  and  has  been  for 
some  weeks,  traveling  in  the  West,  in  connection  with  the  sale  of 
lands;  that  he  has  not  been  heard  from  for  more  than  ten  days;  that 
it  is  not  known  when  he  will  return  to  Chicago;  that  he  has  not  com¬ 
municated  with  his  parents  in  this  city  nor  with  his  business  partner. 
The  State  has  not,  since  August  2,  1910,  when  subpoena  was  issued 
for  his  appearance,  been  able  to  get  any  trace  of  his  whereabouts. 
His  attorney  at  that  time  represented  to  the  court  that  Wilson  was  in 
a  sanitarium ;  his  mother  now  states  that  he  is  not  at  this  time  in  a 
sanitarium.  Casey,  his  business  associate,  states  that  he  thinks  that 
Wilson  will  be  in  Chicago  in  a  few  days.  His  parents  on  several 
occasions  have  stated  that  they  do  not  know  when  he  will  return. 
A  post-office  inspector  is  trying  to  obtain  tracings  of  the  addresses  of 
letters  received  by  Casey  and  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Wilson  in  an  effort  to 
learn  in  what  section  of  the  country  Wilson  is  now  traveling  or 
located.  He  has  not  been  seen  around  Democratic  committee  head¬ 
quarters  in  Chicago  for  several  weeks.  As  stated  in  the  accompany¬ 
ing  memoranda  reports  from  deputies  William  H.  Griffith  and  George 
J.  Griffith,  in  several  interviews  with  Wilson's  parents  and  with 
Casey  and  with  Forrest,  his  former  attorney,  it  has  been  impossible 
to  procure  any  useful  information  as  to  his  present  whereabouts. 

Six  subpoenas,  by  direction  of  the  committee,  were  given  to  Mr. 
Austrian  upon  his  request  and  representation  that  his  men  would  as¬ 
sist  in  locating  Mr.  Wilson.  Xo  report  has  been  made  on  these. 

It  is  evident  that  to  locate  Mr.  Wilson  and  serve  the  subpoena  on 
him  the  plan  to  discover  his  present  whereabouts  in  the  West  must 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  675 

be  carried  out.  By  placing  in  the  hands  of  agents  of  the  Post-Office 
Department  and  of  the  Department  of  Justice  the  additional  original 
subpoenas  signed  by  the  chairman  it  may  be  possible  to  serve  Wilson 
within  a  week  or  ten  days. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  it  would  be  well  to  have  his  business 
partner  subpoenaed  here. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  subpoena  will  then  be  issued  for  Mr. 
Casev. 

Senator  Gamble.  How  old  a  man,  Mr.  Austrian,  is  Mr.  Wilson? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Wilson,  I  should  say,  was  42  or  43  years  old. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don't  know;  I  never  saw  him.  I  never  saw  him 
to  know  him  more  than  two  or  three  times. 

Senator  Gamble.  How  old  are  his  parents  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  don’t  know. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  will  have  a  subpoena  issued  for 
Mr.  Casey  to  appear  here  to-morrow  morning.  Some  of  the  members 
of  the  committee  desire  the  presence  of  Speaker  Shurtleff.  He  has 
been  communicated  with  and  advises  the  committee  that  he  will  be 
here  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o’clock.  He  is  now  in  the  city.  Judge, 
lave  you  probably  any  other  witnesses  to-morrow  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Well,  I  may  have,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  I  have  not 
their  names  now  and  I  can  not  give  the  committee  any  information 
in  them. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  try  and  be  ready  with  them,  if  you 
aave  any? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  If  you  can  the  committee  will  be  glad  to  have 
vou  do  so  that  we  may  advance  this  matter  as  rapidly  as  possible. 
The  committee  will  be  glad  to  close  this  matter,  if  possible,  to-mor¬ 
row. 

The  committee  will  adjourn  until  10  o'clock  to-morrow. 

SATURDAY,  OCTOBER  8,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

At  10  o’clock  a.  m.  the  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Whereupon  the  following  members  of  the  subcommittee  were  pres¬ 
et  :  Hon.  J.  C.  Burrows,  chairman,  Hon.  Bobert  J.  Gamble.  Hon. 
W.  B.  Heyburn,  Hon.  Thomas  H.  Paynter,  Hon.  Joseph  F.  John¬ 
ston.  and  Hon.  James  B.  Frazier. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  Mr.  Robert  J.  Wilson. 

Robert  J.  Wilson,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first 
luly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  testified  as  follows : 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Wilson,  where  do  you  reside? — A.  4025 
?errv  street,  on  the  Xorth  Side. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Robert  E.  Wilson? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  relation  is  he  to  you? — A.  He  is  my  son. 

Q.  Where  does  he  live? — A.  He  lives  at  the  same  number. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  committee  where  he  is  now? — A.  I  can  not. 

Q.  When  did  you  last  see  him? — A.  I  seen  him  on  the  Saturday 
ifter  the  primaries,  that  would  be,  I  think,  the  17th — Saturday  after 
he  primary  election. 

Q.  Saturday  after  the  primary  election  ? — A.  Yes. 


676  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  will  be  the  17th  of  September? — A.  Sep¬ 
tember. 

Senator  Burrows.  Saturday  after  the  15th — the  primaries  were  on 
the  15th. — A.  After  the  primary ;  I  met  him  about  12  o’clock. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  him  since? — A.  I  have  never  seen  him  since. 

Q.  What  is  his  business? — A.  Well,  he  is  in  the  real  estate  business. 

Q.  With  whom,  if  anybody? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  whether  he 
is  a  full  partner  or  not,  but  he  is  in — J.  W.  Casey  and  him  is  together. 
He  used  to  be  at  66  Rush  street,  and  they  moved  to  Washington  street 
some  time  ago. 

Q.  And  you  have  not  seen  him  since  the  time  you  mentioned? — A. 
1  have  not  seen  him  nor  heard  from  him  since  the  17th  of  September. 

Q.  You  have  received  no  word  from  him? — A.  I  have  not  heard 
anything  from  him. 

Q.  W  as  he  in  the  sanitarium  at  one  time  at  Milwaukee? — A.  He 
was. 

Q.  He  was? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know  whether  he  was  in  the  sani¬ 
tarium,  but  he  was  under  a  doctor's  treatment  there  for  quite  a  while 
for  his  eyes. 

Q.  What  was  the* trouble? — A.  His  eyes.  When  I  last  seen  him 
his  eyes  were  in  very  bad  shape. 

Q.  How  old  is  he? — A.  Forty,  I  think. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  have  no  further  questions. 

Senator  Gamble.  Have  you  seen  any  telegram  from  him? — A.  I 
never  did.  I  have  not  heard  anything  whatever  from  him  since  the 
17th  of  September;  not  a  word. 

Q.  Do  you  know,  or  has  anyone  else  made  any  suggestions  to  you, 
as  to  his  whereabouts,  or  having  heard  from  him? — A.  No.  They 
have  been  talking  over  it,  time  and  again,  expecting — I  have  been 
expecting  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  he  left  the  city,  if  he  did,  on  the  17th  of 
September? — A.  I  don’t;  I  don’t. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  left  the  city  ? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  make  any  statement  to  you  as  to  where  he  was  going? — - 
A.  He  did  not.  He  just — I  met  him  at  Irving  Park  and  Perry  street 
around  12  o’clock  and  nodded  to  him,  bowed,  and  he  took  a  street 
car  and  went  east  on  the  Irving  Park  street  car. 

Q.  Does  he  live  at  your  home? — A.  He  does. 

Q.  He  is  an  unmarried  man,  is  he? — A.  He  is  an  unmarried  man. 

Senator  Johnston.  What  was  the  condition  of  his  health  when 
you  last  saw  him? — A.  Well,  it  was  not  good  at  all;  the  eyes  have 
been  bothering  him  very  much  for — oh,  for  quite  a  while  since  this — 
more  since  July  and  August,  I  think.  He  has  been  treating  the  eyes 
in  June  and  July  and  August. 

Senator  Frazier.  Has  he  any  business  interests  in  other  States  that 
you  know  of  that  would  call  him  there? — A.  Well,  none  that  I  know 
of  particularly;  but  he  has  friends,  and  frequently  he  has  left  the 
city,  sometimes  on  business,  and  been  gone  for  a  little  while. 

Q.  Has  any  mail  come  to  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Since  he  left? — A.  I  don’t  know  positively  about  it,  because  I 
am  not  at  home  from  6  in  the  morning  to  half-past  5  or  6  o’clock 
in  the  evening. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  677 

Q.  Has  any  of  your  family  received  any  letter  or  communication 
from  him? — A.  No;  we  have  been  waiting  and  watching,  expecting  a 
letter  from  him,  but  none  has  come. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  was  not  infrequent  for  Mr.  Wilson  to  make  trips 
of  this  kind  without  letting  you  or  your  wife  know,  was  it? — A.  I 
knew  very  little  of  him  for  many  years.  He  goes  and  comes,  and  I 
go  and  come. 

Q.  He  lived  at  your  home  when  he  was  in  Chicago,  and  spent  his 
nights  there  most  of  the  time,  didn’t  he? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know 
about  that,  because  he  comes  in,  he  has  a  room  there,  and  he  comes  in, 
and  he  can  go  into  that  room  without  me  knowing  it. 

Q.  You  talk  to  your  son,  don’t  you? — A.  Sure.^ 

Q.  And  you  are  on  friendly  relations? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  reported  his  absence  to  the  police  ?— A.  To  the  police 
of  Chicago  ? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  You  are  not  disturbed  about  it? — A.  Well,  not— I  have  not  been 
disturbed ;  I  was  very  anxious  lately,  because  I  thought  he  would  be 
home  some  time  last  week  or  this  week,  I  mean.  I  thought  positively 
that  he  would  be  home  this  week. 

Q.  What  made  you  think  that  he  would  be  home  this  week? — A. 
Because  the  talking  was  going  on,  from  one  to  another,  that  I  ex¬ 
pected  him.  I  expected  him  a  day  or  two  after  he  had  left,  as  far  as 
expectation  was  concerned. 

Q.  From  what  did  that  expectation  arise?  Was  it  from  some  dis¬ 
cussion  between  you  and  Wilson  or  you  and  Mrs.  Wilson  or  what? — 
A.  Something  like  that. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  talk  to  about  when  he  would  be  back? — A.  I 
talked  to  his  mother. 

Q.  What  did  his  mother  say  ? — A.  She  said  she  didn’t  know. 

Q.  If  she  told  you  she  did  not  know,  then  what  led  you  to  believe 
he  would  be  back  inside  of  ten  days? — A.  Because  he  was  in  the 
habit  of  coming;  there  was  one  time  he  was  gone  longer  than  this,  but 
we  heard  from  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  How  long  was  your  son  in  the  sanitarium  in  Mil¬ 
waukee  or  Wisconsin  some  place?— A.  Well,  he  was  gone,  I  should 
judge,  between  two  and  three  weeks. 

<  Q.  Up  to  what  time;  that  is,  when  was  it  that  he  left  the  sanita¬ 
rium,  that  you  know  of? — A.  That  I  could  not  positively  say. 

Q.  Well,  when  was  it,  with  reference  to  the  primary? — A.  Oh,  it 
was  two  or  three  weeks  before  the  primary — a  couple  of  weeks. 

Q.  That  is,  he  was  back  here  two  or  three  weeks  before  the  pri¬ 
mary?— A.  Well - 

Q.  Two  or  three  weeks  before  the  15th  of  September? — A.  I  would 
not  be  positive  of  that,  either.  I  think,  if  I  remember  rightly,  maybe 
it  is  two  weeks  before  the  primary. 

Q.  That  is  two  weeks  before? — A.  I  would  not  be  positive  about 
that  to  a  day.  It  was  something  like  two  weeks,  I  think,  before  the 
primary  election. 

Q.  But  before  the  15th  of  September,  you  mean? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  The  primary  was  the  15th  of  September? — A.  Yes.  I  have  not 
kept  any  particular  track  of  thinking  about  it. 


678  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  What  was  he  in  the  sanitarium  for,  if  anything,  besides  his 
eyes? — A.  The  eyes. 

Q.  Were  they  operated  on? — A.  That  I  don't  know. 

Q.  You  don’t  know? — A.  Xo. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Call  Mr.  James  W.  Case\r. 


James  W.  Casey,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  ha\7ing  been  first  duly 
sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Mr.  Austrian,  and  testi¬ 
fied  as  follows: 


Senator  Burroavs.  Mr.  Austrian,  I  believe  you  asked  for  this  wit¬ 
ness. 


Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Q.  What  is  your  full  name,  please? — A.  James  W.  Casey. 

Q.  What  is  your  business? — A.  Real  estate. 

Q.  Where  is  your  place  of  business? — A.  101  Washington  street. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Robert  E.  Wilson? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him? — A.  TAventy-one  years. 

Q.  Is  he  engaged  in  any  business  with  you? — A.  He  works  some 
with  me.  He  puts  over  some  deals  through  my  office. 

Q.  His  office  is  with  your  office,  is  it  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  AA’here  is  your  office  ? — A.  101  Washington  street. 

Q.  Chicago,  Illinois? — A.  Chicago,  Illinois. 

Q.  Hoaat  long  has  he  been  associated  in  the  way  you  ha\Te  indi¬ 
cated  with  you  ( — A.  Well,  off  and  on  for  fifteen  }rears. 

Q.  You  know  him  Arery  well? — A.  Very  well. 

Q.  And  have  you  had  any  business  transactions  with  Mr.  Wilson 
since  the  month  of  September? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Xone,  whateA'er? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  Mr.  Wilson  the  last  time? — A.  The  daAT  after 
the — I  won't  say  Avhether  the  day  after  or  the  second  day  after  the 
primary  election. 

Q.  He  Avas  active  in  the  primary  election,  Avas  he? — A.  Well,  he 
wasn’t  so  active;  I  Avas. 

Q.  He  was  a  candidate  for  the  legislature  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  correct? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  Illinois  legislature? — A.  That  is  right. 

Q.  Where  did  you  meet  him  the  last  time  that  you  saw  him? — A. 
The  last  time  I  saw  him.  he  stepped  into  my  office,  I  was  quite  busy, 
and  he  said,  “  I  will  see  you  again,  Jim,”  and  AA’alked  right  out. 

Q.  What  did  you  understand  that  he  meant  bv  it  ? — A.  Oh.  he  was 
always  a  AAdiole-souled  felloAv,  and  he  always  had  the  glad  hand,  you 
know. 

Q.  You  thought  he  was  leaving  you,  is  that  right? — A.  Xo;  he 
always  does  that,  all  the  time. 

Q.  You  haA^en’t  seen  him  since? — A.  I  haven’t  seen  him  since. ' 

Q.  You  haven’t  heard  from  him  since? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  And  no  inquiries  were  made  for  him  since? — A.  Yes;  many. 

Q.  By  his  business  associates  or  otherwise? — A.  Well,  some  people 
called  up  on  the  wire  about  they  wanted  him  to  handle  a  certain  piece 
of  property  that  he  AATas  handling,  or  something  like  that,  but  nobody 
has  been  in  my  office  on  any  business. 

Q.  Did  he  have  open  deals  Avhen  he  left  ? — A.  He  always  had  open 
deals. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  679 

Q.  Have  you  attended  to  those  since? — A.  No;  I  don’t  ever  attend 
to  his  deals  at  all,  until  he  brings  them  to  me  to  finish  up  and  make 
the  papers  for  him. 

Q.  Who  has  been  attending  to  his  open  deals  or  business  while  he 
has  been  gone? — A.  No  one. 

Q.  No  one  at  all? — A.  That  I  know  of. 

Q.  And  you  haven’t  heard  from  him? — A.  I  haven’t  heard  from 

him. 

Q.  Received  no  communication  of  any  kind  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  Directly  or  indirectly? — A.  Directly  or  indirectly? 

Q.  Any  mail  received  for  him  at  your  office  ? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  None  whatever? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Does  his  mail  come  to  your  office  ? — A.  Some  of  it ;  yes. 

Q.  And  since  the  time  he  came  there,  how  long  before  any  letters 
have  come  from  him  ? — A.  It  might  be  six  or  eight  months  before  any 
letter  would  come  from  him  at  any  time. 

Q.  That  is  even  his  political  mail? — A.  No;  it  don’t  go  there;  I 
don’t  know  of  any  mail. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  of  where  he  is  ? — A.  I  don’t  know  at  all. 

Q.  Did  he  have  any  deals  that  you  know  of  that  took  him  out  of 
Chicago? — A.  Well,  he  talked  to  me — I  went  to  Chicago  in  July, 
and  he  said  to  me  “  Won’t  you  look  up  a  deal  in  Fresno  County  for 
me?  ”  “  Well,”  I  said  “  Bob,  I  am  going  to-night,  and  if  you  get  the 
data  of  that  for  me  I  will  stop  off  for  you  on  my  way  down  to  Los 
Angeles,  and  look  it  up  for  you.”  And  he  didn’t  get  it,  and  I  didn't 
see  him.  That  is  the  only  deal  I  ever  heard  of  him  having  on. 

Q.  You  never  discussed  it  with  him  subsequently  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  That  was  many  months  ago? — A.  Well,  I  left  here  on  the  16th 
of  July. 

Q.  Mr.  Casey,  your  relations  with  him  were  such  that  if  he  was 
going  to  make  any  extended  journey,  he  would  be  pretty  apt  to  let 
you  know? — A.  No. 

Q.  Has  he  ever  made  a  journey  of  this  kind,  absenting  himself  for 
several  weeks? — A.  Always. 

Q.  He  has  made  a  number  of  them,  has  he? — A.  We  used  to  be  in 
the  auction  merchandise  business  together,  and  I  have  had  him  out 
in  Minnesota  running  a  store  for  me,  and  didn’t  hear  from  him  for 
nearly  four  months. 

Q.  But  you  knew  where  he  was? — A.  Oh,  yes;  I  supposed  I  did. 

Q.  He  made  frequent  journeys  of  this  kind,  covering  a  period  of 
two  or  three  weeks,  without  advising  you  where  he  was? — A.  Yes, 

sir. 

Q.  Frequent  journeys  inside  of  the  last  six  months? — A.  Yes. 
Well,  all  his  life — ever  since  I  have  known  him. 

Q.  And  within  the  last  six  months,  he  has  absented  himself? — A. 
He  doesn't  ask  any  questions  of  me  when  he  goes. 

Q.  And  doesn’t  let  you  know  where  he  is  going  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  And  does  not  advise  you  where  he  is  after  he  has  gone? — A.  No. 

Q.  You  haven’t  any  idea  of  his  whereabouts  now? — A.  Absolutely 
none. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  he  a  member  of  the  present  legislature,  the 
last  legislature? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  his  first  term,  do  you  know  ? — A.  Second. 


680  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  That  was  his  second  term.  And  he  was  a  candidate  for  reelec¬ 
tion? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Was  he  renominated  at  the  primaries  the  15th  of 
last  month? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  were  direct  primaries? — A.  Well,  that  new  primary  law, 
I  don’t  know  what  it  is. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  the  direct  primaries. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  Do  you  know  the 
name  of  any  person  in  Fresno,  Cal.,  connected  with  this  deal? — A. 
No ;  I  don't  know  a  thing  about  the  deal. 

Q.  And  don’t  know  the  name  of  any  person  through  whom  infor¬ 
mation  might  be  obtained? — A.  No  person.  I  never  got  the  data. 
I  never  heard  anything  really  about  it  at  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anything  further  of  this  witness? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  desire  anything  further. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  no. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  mav  be  excused. 

«/ 

The  Witness.  May  I  go  back  home,  to  my  office? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes.  Call  Mr.  Holtslaw. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Terrill? 

Senator  Burrows.  Wait  a  moment.  Call  Mr.  Terrill.  Mr.  Terrill 
has  been  here  some  time.  He  is  anxious  to  return  home,  I  under¬ 
stand  ;  he  has  been  here  some  time. 

Henry  Terrill,  recalled  as  a  witness  herein,  testified  as  follows: 

By  Senator  Heyburn  : 

Q.  When  you  were  on  the  witness  stand  before,  you  stated  that  Mr. 
Griffin,  a  member  of  the  legislature  from  Cook  County,  had  a  con¬ 
versation  with  you  in  which  he  asked  you  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer, 
and  in  which  you  stated  that  you  asked  him  what  there  would  be  in 

it,  and  he  said  a  thousand  dollars,  anv  wav.  Where  was  that  con- 

_  «/ 

versation  had? — A.  That  was  right  across  on  Fourth  street,  right 
opposite  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel. 

Senator  Frazier.  In  Springfield? — A.  In  Springfield. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Mr.  Griffin  has  been  on  the  stand,  and  at  page 
1572  of  the  testimony  he  relates  the  circumstance  where  he  had  a 
conversation  with  you  in  these  words : 

There  was  a  band  playing  across  the  street  there;  I  went  across  the  street— 
there  was  an  Elk’s  convention  there — and  after  the  band  went  upstairs  I  started 
to  walk  over  to  the  hotel  and  met  Terrill,  and  I  said,  “  Hello,  Terrill.”  He 
said,  “Hello.”  I  said,  “Terrill,  why  don’t  you  vote  for  Lorimer?”  “Now,” 
I  said,  “  you  are  a  Republican,  and  it  don’t  make  any  difference ;  ”  and  I  says, 
“  It  will  make  you  strong  politically  in  your  town  to  have  it  known — to  have 
a  United  States  Senator  back  of  you ;  ”  and  I  says,  “  You  ought  to  vote  for  him,” 
I  says,  “  as  long  as  he  is  a  Republican.” 

Now,  he  follows  that  by  saving,  in  response  to  a  question — 

Q.  And  if  Terrill  had  been  a  Democrat,  you  would  have  told  him  he  ought  to 
vote  for  him,  too? 

He  says : 

I  suppose  I  would;  yes.  I  told  him  I  was  going  to  vote  for  him. 

Q.  Now,  did  you  discuss  with  Terrill  anything  about  money — did  you.  at  all? 

His  answer  was: 

No,  sir. 

Now,  is  that  the  conversation  you  refer  to? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  681 


A.  Well,  partly ;  yes. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  other  conversation  with  him  before  that? — 
A.  We  had  a  conversation  about  money;  the  only  thing  is  I  can 
verify  my  statement  of  Wednesday.  I  asked  him  out  of  curiosity. 

Q.  At  that  time? — A.  Along  at  that  time. 

Q*  hen  you  were  oatt  there  where  the  band  had  been  playing? — • 
A.  1  es ;  when  we  were  over  there  on  the  other  side  of  the  street.  & 

Q.  So  you  reaffirm  your  statement  that  that  conversation  took 
place  at  that  time  and  place? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  the  conversation  with  reference  to  the  $1,000? _ A.  In 

which  he  stated  that  there  would  be  $1,000  anyway. 

Senator  Heyburn.  That  is  all  I  desired  to  ask. 

Senator  Gamble.  Now,  perhaps  another  question.  In  the  testi- 
monv,  I  think,  of  Jacob  Groves — I  think  that  is  the  name,  the  wit¬ 
ness  Groves — you  made  this  statement : 


Q.  State  what,  if  any,  conversation  you  had  with  Terrill.— A. 
me  he  got  $1,000  for  voting  for  Lorimer. 


Mr.  Terrill  told 


Senator  Frazier.  That  was  corrected  afterwards. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  was  corrected. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  was  trying  to  locate  the  correction. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  said  he  “  could  have  got.” 

Senator  Gamble.  Well,  did  you  have  anv  conversation  with  Mr 
Groves  relative  to  the  use  of  the  term  “  $1,000?  ” — A.  Yes;  I  re¬ 
peated  to  Mr.  Groves  the  conversation  I  had  with  Mr.  Griffin. 

Q.  Just  state,  as  near  as  you  can,  that  conversation  that  you  had 
with  Groves.— A.  Well,  I  told  Mr.  Groves  of  the  conversation  I  had 
with  Mr.  Griffin  the  evening  previous,  in  which  Griffin  stated  that 
there  would  be  $1,000  in  it  anyway.  I  do  not  want  you  to  misunder¬ 
stand  me.  I  never  was  offered  $1,000  at  anv  time  by  anyone. 

Q.  You  never  were  offered  $1,000  ?— A.  No,  sir;  I  never  was  offered 

$1 .000. 

Q.  By  anyone? — A.  By  anyone. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  I  did  not. 

Judge  IIa nec y.  Were  you  ever  offered  any  money  or  other  thing 
of  value? — A.  I  never  was. 

Q.  By  anybody  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States 
Senator  or  because — you  didn’t  vote  for  him? — A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  If  you  would  vote  for  him?— A.  No,  sir;  I  wasn’t  offered  anv- 

thmg. 

Senator  Gamble.  Page  1337  is  the  correction.  The  question  by 
Senator  Heyburn  to  Mr.  Groves:  J 


Re-examination:  He  came  back,  this  witness,  yesterday  and  testified  with 
reference  to  Mr.  Terrill  and  what  Mr.  Terrill  had  said  to  him.  I  desire  that 
fhere  should  be  no  question  about  that  before  he  is  excluded.  I  will  see  now 
whether  or  not  the  testimony  now,  after  being  corrected,  states  it  correctly. 
In  speaking  of  Mr.  Terrill  yesterday  you  were  asked  whether  or  not  he  stated 
to  y°11  that  he  could  receive  money  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  The  record 
iow,  after  you  have  corrected  it,  shows  that  you  answered  that  he  stated  that 
ie  could  have  earned  $1,000.  Now,  that  stands  as  your  answer,  does  it’ — A  Yes 
•ir.  '  ’ 

Q.  You  were  then  asked  to  repeat  it,  and  you  said,  “Yes;  if  he  would  vote 
'or  Lorimer.  That  was  Mr.  Terrill,  who  was  just  on  the  stand  here  recently.” 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  says  “  Yes”  to  that. 


682  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Gamble.  Do  you  desire  any  correction  or  change  to  your 
testimony  which  you  gave  on  the  other  time  when  you  were  originally 
on  the  stand? — A.  No,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  ever  tell  anybody  that  you  could  earn 
Si, 000  if  you  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer — for  William  Lorimer — for 
United  States  Senator? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  told  anybody  that? — A.  I  never  told  anybody. 

Q.  You  never  told  Jacob  Groves  or  anybody  else  that? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  never  told  Jacob  Groves  or  anybody  else  that  you 
could  earn  any  amount  of  money  or  other  thing  of  value  if  you  did 
vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator,  did  you? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Senator  Frazier.  What  you  did  tell  Mr.  Groves  was  that  you  re¬ 
peated  to  him  the  conversation  which  you  had  detailed  to  Mr. 
Griffin? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  in  which  Mr.  Griffin  told  you  there  was  $1,000  in  it,  or 
more? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Or  at  least  $1,000? — A.  A  thousand  dollars,  anyway. 

Senator  Paynter.  Mr.  Terrill,  if  my  memory  is  not  at  fault,  I  be¬ 
lieve  you  stated  in  your  previous  testimony  that  when  he  invited  you 
to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  you  asked  him  what  was  in  it  for  you? — A. 
No;  not  for  me. 

Q.  Well,  wdiat  was  the  language  he  used  ? — A.  I  said,  “  What  would 
tliere  be  in  it?  ” 

Q.  Well,  I  will  leave  out  the  “  me.”  Then,  “  What  would  there  be 
in  it?”  He  never  followed  that  up,  your  inquiry,  by  offering  von 
anything  at  all? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anybody  else  approach  you  and  offer  you  anything? — A. 
No,  sir. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Did  you  ask  him  what  there  would  be  in  it  for 
the  purpose  of  soliciting  a  bribe  from  him? — A.  No, sir;  for  curiosity. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Curiosity. 

Senator  Frazier.  Had  you  heard  at  that  time  some  talk  about  the 
use  of  money  in  connection  with  this  election? — A.  Rumors  only. 

Q.  That  prompted  you  to  make  that  inquiry? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Paynter.  Did  you  tell  Griffin  that  you  asked  him  out  of 
curiosity? — A.  No,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  the  rumors  that  you  heard  about  the  use  of 
money  were  not  confined  to  any  one  candidate  for  United  States 
Senator,  were  they? — A.  No,  sir;  they  were  not, 

Q.  I  do  not  want  you  to  name  the  different  men  individually,  but 
the  rumors  that  you  heard  applied  to  different  men  who  were  can¬ 
didates  for  United  States  Senator  at  that  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  What  were  you  curious  about  it  for? — A.  Oh, 
I  don’t  know ;  we  all  get  a  little  curious,  I  suppose,  at  times. 

Q.  Well,  how'  did  it  concern  you  ? — A.  It  did  not  concern  me. 

Q.  You  did  not  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  effect  would  it  have  had  upon  you  if  you  had  been 
offered  $1,000? — A.  Just  the  same. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  “  just  the  same?  ” — A.  It  would  not  have 
had  any  effect  whatever  on  me. 

Q.  Would  you  have  taken  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Gamble.  You  were  making  inquiries  simply  for  informa¬ 
tion? — A.  For  myself. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  683 

Q.  To  learn  whether  or  not  anything  of  that  kind  was  going  on 
with  the  members  of  the  legislature,  I  understand  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  As  a  matter  of  curiosity  ? — A.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Well,  was  it  merely  curiosity  or  a  desire  to 
probe  the  question? — A.  Well,  I  would  take  it  as  curiosity.  I  merely 
wanted  to  know  myself. 

Senator  Frazier.  You  were  later  induced  to  make  the  inquiry  from 
the  fact  that  you  had  heard  these  rumors  with  respect  to  the  use  of 
money  in  connection  with  the  election  of  Senator.? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  correct? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Anv  further  questions? 

Senator  Paynter.  You  were  not  seeking  to  trap  or  expose 
jrriffin  ? — A.  No,  sir ;  not  in  any  way. 

Senator  Burrows.  Any  further  questions? 

Judge  HANEgY.  We  have  none. 

Senator  Burrows.  Can  this  witness  now  be  excused?  He  has  been 
lere  several  days. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

The  Witness.  Can  I  be  discharged  now  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  be  discharged. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  sent  for  Mr.  Shurtleff,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I 
hink  he  is  here. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Can  I  have  Mr.  Ilolstlaw  first?  It  will  be  very 
>rief,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Very  well. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Holstlaw. 

D.  W.  Holstlaw,  recalled  as  a  witness  herein,  testified  as  follows: 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  proceed,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  you  were  notified  to  produce  the 
etters  that  you  referred  to  upon  your  last  hearing,  from  Mr.  Brod- 
rick? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  bring  them?— A.  I  did  not,  because  I  could  not  find 
hem. 

Q.  Did  you  search  everywhere  for  them? — A.  I  did;  I  searched 
very  place;  as  I  told  you  before,  I  wasn’t  sure  I  had  them,  but  I 
bought  I  had  them;  when  I  got  home  I  hunted  every  place  and 
ould  not  find  them. 

Q,  How  many  letters  did  you  receive? — A.  Just  one. 

Q.  And  that  was  just  immediately  prior  to  your - 

Judge  Hanecy.  Let  him  state.  I  submit  he  should  not  be 
•rompted. 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  witness  state. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  has  been  all  over  it  before. 

Q.  Fix  the  time  as  near  as  you  can,  prior  to  your  visit  to  Mr. 
Broderick,  of  the  receipt  of  the  letter.— A.  Of  that  letter? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Well,  I  think  it  was  just  about  a  week  before  I  came 
p  here,  and  wasn’t  that  on  the  16th  of  June?  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  look  at  this  deposit  slip,  which  is  in  evidence  as 
Exhibit  1— S  ”  I  think  “  10-3-10  ”  The  State  Bank  of  Chicago, 
s  that  the  deposit  you  made  in  the  State  Bank  of  Chicago  of  $2,500 
ou  referred  to  in  your  prior  testimony? — A.  It  is. 


684  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  Now,  is  vour  memory  refreshed  in  any  way  as  to  the  exact  date 
you  saw  Mr.  Broderick  by  an  examination  of  that  deposit  slip? — A. 
Well,  it  was  the  same  day,  as  I  remember  it. 

Q.  The  same  day? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  You  went  over  from  Broderick’s  saloon  to  the  bank? — A.  I 
did. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  deposit  of  the  $2,500,  is  it? — A.  Yes;  I  suppose 
it  is ;  it  is  on  that  date,  and  I  suppose  it  is. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  $2,500  deposit  you  ever  made  there,  was  it 
not? — A.  Yes;  that  is  all;  yes. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Hoistlaw,  the  letter  which  you  say  you  received  from 
Mr.  Broderick  stated  what? — A.  Well,  as  well  as  I  remember,  it  just 
simply  said  to  “  meet  me  in  Chicago  some  time  the  next  week;  ”  that 
is  my  recollection. 

Q.  And  you  did,  pursuant  to  that  letter,  meet  him  in  Chicago  the 
next  week? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  after  you  met  him,  or  during  the  course  of  your  con¬ 
versation  on  the  16th  of  June,  1909,  was  there  anything  said  about 
your  returning? — A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  When  did  you  return,  if  at  all? — A.  Well,  sir,  that  I  can  not 
remember;  it  must  have  been  a  month  or  so  later,  but  I  don’t 
remember. 

Q.  Well,  who  told  you  to  come  back,  if  anyone? — A.  That;  I  don’t 
remember  that,  either. 

Q.  How  did  you  happen  to  go  back? — A.  Well,  I  don’t  know 
whether  I  was  notified  or  how  it  did  come  about  that  I  wTent  back; 
I  don’t  remember  as  to  that. 

Q.  But  when  you  got  back  you  saw  Mr.  Broderick  again,  did 
you? — A.  Y  es,  sir;  I  seen  Mr.  Broderick  again. 

Q.  Mr.  Hoistlaw,  how  long  were  you  in  Broderick’s  place  on  the 
first  visit  on  the  16th  day  of  June? — A.  Well,  it  was  a  very  short 
time;  I  don’t  know;  I  might  have  been  there  thirty  to  fifty  minutes. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  liquor? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  drink  liquor? — A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  drink  there  at  all? — A.  I  think  I  took  some. 
A  drink  of  blackberry  wine,  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  More  than  one? — A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  take  that  for  medicinal  purposes 

Senator  Paynter.  I  do  not  think  the  witness  should  be  held 
responsible  for  it  if  he  took  it  for  some  other  purpose. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  withdraw  the  question. 

Q.  Mr.  Hoistlaw,  where  did  you  have  this  conversation  that  you 
have  detailed  in  your  prior  testimony  with  Mr.  Broderick,  what  part 
of  the  saloon  or  place  of  business? — A.  What,  in  meeting  him,  do  you 
mean  ? 

Q.  Oh,  no;  this  conversation  when  he  paid  you  the  $2,500? — A. 
Well,  there  wasn’t  much  conversation  about  it. 

Q.  He  just  handed  you  the  $2,500? — A.  He  just  handed  me  the 
$2,500,  and  I  walked  out. 

Q.  Where  did  he  hand  it  to  you  ? — A.  Tn  his  office. 

Q.  At  the  private  office,  was  it? — A.  Yes:  it  was  the  private  office, 
but  it  was  located  in  his  saloon,  in  one  end  of  the  saloon. 

Q.  In  one  end' of  the  saloon? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  685 


Q.  Were  you  standing  at  the  bar,  at  the  end  of  the  bar,  for  an  hour 
or  about  an  hour  or  some  such  time  during  all  the  time  that  you 
were  in  his  saloon?  Or  where  were  you  all  the  time  you  were 
there  ? — A.  Well,  I  was  there,  I  think,  I  was  sitting  there  the  most  of 
the  time  when  I  was  there,  just  sitting  in  the  saloon. 

Q.  In  the  saloon? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  waiting  for  Mr.  Broderick  to  come  there?— A.  I  was, 

Q.  How  long  did  you  wait  for  him? — A.  Well,  that  I  can  not  say. 

Q.  Well,  how  long  were  you  there  before  he  came? — A.  Oh,  I  per¬ 
haps  was  there,  I  don’t  know 5  I  may  have  been  there  an  hour. 

Q.  An  hour? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  after  he  got  there?— A.  Not  very 
long. 

Q.  Yell,  how  long? — A.  Well,  probably  thirty  or  forty  minutes: 
something  like  that.  J  ’ 

Q.  Did  you  remain  in  the  open  part  of  the  saloon  with  Broderick, 

3r  did  you  go  some  place?— A.  No;  we  were  right  there  in  the  saloon 
with  him. 

Q.  When  did  you  go  into  the  private  office?— A.  Just  a  short  time 
Deiore  I  left. 

Q.  And  how  long  were  you  in  the  private  office?— A.  Oh,  I  think 
perhaps  five  minutes. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  you  to  go  in  the  private  office? — A.  Well,  my 
’ecollection  is  that  he  did  step  in  there. 

Q.  And  you  w^ent  in  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Holstlaw,  when  you  went  there  the  second  time  did  you 
neet  Broderick? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  there,  the  second  time  you  were 
here? — A.  A  very  short  time. 

Q.  A  very  short  time.  How  long?— A.  Well,  I  should  think 
wenty  or  thirty  minutes. 

Senator  Burroavs.  It  is  quite  difficult  to  hear  your  answers. 

The  Y  itness.  Oh,  it  is.  Well,  I  will  try  and  answer  a  little 
ouder,  Senator. 

Mr.  Austrian.  YTiere  did  you  meet  Broderick  on  that  occasion? — - 
v.  I  met  him  in  the  saloon,  first. 

Q.  Y  ere  you  there  before  he  got  there,  or  Avas  he  there  AAThen  you 

fot  there?  A.  I  think  he  came  in  just  a  feAv  minutes  after  I  got 

here. 


Q.  Did  you  stay  in  the  saloon  or  did  atou  go  any  place  with  him? — 
no;  I  stayed  right  there  until  he  came. 

Q.  And  then  after  he  came  what  did  you  do?— A.  Y^alked  into  his 
mce. 

Q.  And  how  long  did  you  remain  in  his  office? — A.  Perhaps  five 
nnutes.  1 


Q.  Did  he  give  you  the  $700  in  his  office?— A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  then  you  left? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  county  you  live  in  is  a  prohibition  county, 
5  h  not?— A.  Well,  T  believe  it  is  and  it  is- 


E  You  know  it  is,  do  you  not  ? — A.  Yes,  it  is  a  prohibition  county. 

«.  there  are  some  counties  in  your  senatorial  district  that  are 

At  ? — A.  1  es,  sir. 


686  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  one  of  them  is  Clinton  County? — A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  You  carried  Clinton  County,  didn’t  you? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  did  not  carry  your  own  county,  did  you? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  the  private  office  in  Broderick's  place  of  business?— 
A.  It  was  at  the  end  of  the  saloon. 

Q.  Well,  which  end? — A.  Well,  I  think  it  was  in  the  west  end; 
I  may  have  been - 

Q.  W  as  that  the  front  or  rear  end? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  him  finish ;  he  says  he  might  have - - 

A.  I  might  have  been  turned  around  in  regard  to  that,  but  it  was 
the  front  end ;  yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  It  was  the  front  end? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  was  there  to  designate  or  indicate  that  there  was  an 
office  at  that  end? — A.  There  wasn't  anything. 

Q.  The  only  partition  or  division  there  was  in  the  entire  place  from 
the  time  you  entered  the  front  door  until  you  got  through  and  out 
of  the  back  door,  or  to  the  back  door,  was  a  low  partition  with  swing¬ 
ing  doors  that  did  not  go  to  the  floor  beloAV  or  to  the  ceiling  above; 
is  not  that  right? — A.  Yes,  that  is  right. 

Q.  So  that  you  could  not  get  into  the  saloon  part  where  the  bar  was 
from  the  front  door?— A.  No,  sir;  there  is  no  front  door  to  the  office, 
as  I  remember  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Wait  until  I  get  through. 

Senator  Burrows.  He  is  speaking  of  the  outside. 

Judge  Hanecy.  When  you  come  in  from  the  outside  you  could  not 
go  into  the  bar  room  or  the  bar  part  of  the  saloon  without  passing 
through  this  space  that  had  a  low  partition  and  short  doors  that  did 
not  go  to  the  floor  or  to  the  ceiling? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  right,  is  it  not? — A.  Yes;  that  is  right. 

Q.  So  that  everybody  who  came  in  or  went  out  the  front  door  had 
to  pass  through  that  what  you  call  the  office? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  the  office — the  part  that  you  call  the  office — is  practically 
a  screen,  is  it  not,  so  that  people  passing  on  the  street  can  not  look 
through  the  doors  and  see  who  is  at  the  bar  back  of  there  drinking 
or  sitting  down  or  talking;  that  is  right,  is  it  not? — A.  I  think  it 
is  so  arranged  that  way ;  yes,  sir. 

.  Q.  What  is  there  in'  that  front  part  of  the  place;  what  is  there  in 
there;  was  there  anything  in  there? — A.  Do  you  mean  the  office  part? 

Q.  What  you  call  the  office;  yes.— A.  Well,  there  wasn’t  anything 
but  a  desk. 

Q.  Simply  a  desk? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  anybody  could  look  from  the  street  right  into  that  part  of 
the  office,  couldn’t  they? — A.  I  think  so;  yes. 

Q.  Yes.  That  was  open  right  out  to  the  street  and  anybody  passing 
could  look  into  the  office  and  see  who  was  there  and  what  they  were 
doing;  and  anybody  in  the  office  who  was  sitting  down  or  standing 
up  could  look  out  onto  the  street  and  see  who  was  passing? — A.  Yes; 
there  is  a  window  to  it,  no  door,  a  window,  and  they  could  look  right 
in  if  they  so  desired. 

Q.  That  was  the  most  public  part  of  the  entire  saloon  of  Mr.  Brod¬ 
erick,  was  it  not? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  When  you  say  you  got  this  letter — but  I  withdraw  that  for  the 
present.  Did  anybody  go  in  or  out  of  the  saloon  while  you  were 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  687 


there  through  the  front  door?— A.  Oh,  I  suppose  so,  but  I  don’t 
know. 


Q*  ??11  ,^n  t  Pa*v  attention  to  it? — A.  No;  I  didn't  pay  attention 
to  that,  but  I  suppose  there  was  all  the  time,  going  out  and  coming  in. 

Q.  All  the  time? — A.  All  the  time;  yes. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  that?— A.  About  IQ  o’clock. 

Q.  In  the  morning? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

9:  Aicl  Yhat  time  did  y°u  get  there?— A.  What  time  did  I  get 
o  his  office  ? 

Q.  To  the  saloon  or  omce  ?  A.  Well,  I  should  think  it  was  some- 
vhere  near  9  o’clock. 


Q.  In  the  morning? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  delayed  there  until  when?— A.  About  10  or  a  little 
ut  alter. 


Q.  Then  Broderick  came? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  you  were  there  thirty  or  forty  minutes  after  that  were 
011  ; — A.  After  Mr.  Broderick  came? 

Q.  Tes. — A.  I  should  think  so ;  yes. 

Q.  TV  hat  did  you  do  while  you  were  waiting  for  Mr.  Broderick 
•etween  9  and  10  o’clock? — A.  Sitting  there  reading  the  paper. 

Q.  In  the  bar  part  ?— A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  anybody?— A.  No;  no  one  at  all,  except  I 
lay  have  spoken  to  his  bartender. 

Q.  How  many  bartenders  were  there  there?— A.  I  think  only  one. 
Q.  It  is  a  very  long  bar,  is  it  not?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  was  there— were  there  billiard  and  pool  tables  in  that  long 
jom  back  of  the  screen  in  front? — A.  Well,  I  think  there  was;  that 
*  my  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  A  number  of  them,  weren’t  there?— A.  Well,  really  I  don’t 
now  how  many. 

Q.  You  didn't  see  anybody,  or  you  don’t  remember  anybody  that 
as  tliere,  during  the  time  that  you  were  there  from  9  until  10,  or 

com  the  time  that  Mr.  Broderick  came  until  you  went  awav  ’  do 
ou  ?— A.  No,  sir.  ,  J  ’ 

Q',Bu.t  t*i?re  were  many  PeoPle  going  in  and  out  there  all  the 
me  ? — A.  1  here  was. 


Q.  And  there  were  a  number  of  people  at  the  bar  there  all  the 
me,  weren  t  there? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  the  letter  that  you  say  you  got  from  Mr.  Broderick  indi- 
ite  to  you  m  any  way  that  you  were  to  get  anything  from  Mr  Brod- 
•ick  when  you  got  there  ?— A.  It  did  not. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  about  it,  either  in  the  letter  itself  or  en- 
;lope,  or  anything  connected  with  either,  or  the  fact  that  you  re¬ 
ived  that  letter,  indicating  to  you  in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly 
at  you  were  wanted  here  for  the  purposre  of  getting  something  from 
r.  Broderick? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  haven’t  any  objection  to  counsel  asking  him,  but 
•  is  asking  whether  there  was  anything  in  the  letter  or  the  envelope 
id  then  slips  in,  “or  the  fact  that  he  received  it.”  Now,  I  do  not  sup- 
>se  the  witness  is  schooled,  but  I  think  the  witness  ought  to  be  asked 
question  that  is  more  simple;  separate  it. 

Judge  ITanecy.  I  mean,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  he  had  a  scheme  or  plan 
ith  Mr.  Broderick  or  anybody  that  whenever  he  received  a  slip  of 
per  or  letter  that  he  was  to  come  in.  That  is  what  I  mean.  I 


688  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

want  to  know  whether  there  was  anything  in  any  way,  directly  or 
indirectly. 

Senator  Burrows.  Put  your  question  in  that  way. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  have  the  question  read? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  read  the  question. 

(Question  read.)  • 

A.  There  was  not. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  know,  and  had  no  indication  of  any  kind, 
through  the  letter  or  otherwise,  that  when  you  came  here  you  were  to 
get  anything  from  Mr.  Broderick,  did  you? — A.  TV  ell,  Mr.  Broderick 
told  me  that  he  would  give  me  the  $2,500. 

Q.  Well,  when  did  he  tell  you  that  ? 

Senator  Paynter.  Let  him  fimsh.  Just  a  moment. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  thought  he  was  through. 

Senator  Heyburx.  Finish  your  answer,  witness. 

Senator  Burroavs.  Bead  the  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Senator  Burroavs.  Boat  read  the  answer. 

(Answer  read.) 

Senator  Burroavs.  Have  you  any  further  answer  to  that  question? 

The  Witness.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Paynter.  What  response  did  you  make  when  he  made  that 
statement  to  }tou.  if  any? — A.  I  don't  think  I  made  any. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  had  understood  your  testimony  before.— A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  When  you  were  on  the  Avitness  stand  here  before. 
Mr.  Holtslaw,  did  you  not  tell  this  honorable  committee  that  you 
never  expected  to  get  anything  from  Mr.  Broderick  or  anybody  else 
because  of  any  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator 
or  anything  else? — A.  No;  I  don’t  remember  that  I  told  them  in  that 
Avay.  I  don’t  consider  when  I  got  the — well,  I  consider  this,  that  I 
would  have  voted  for  him;  I  would  have  voted  for  him.  It  didn't 
make  anv  difference  about  the  $2,500,  and  he  never  said  a  word  to  me 
about  the  $2,500  until  the  night  before  he  was  elected,  and  I  didn't 
knoAv  at  that  time  that  I  would  get  a  cent  and  did  not  expect  it. 

Q.  And  didn’t  you  say  on  your  former  examination  before  this 
honorable  committee  that  you* did  not  know  why  you  received  the 
$2,500  from  Senator  Broderick? — A.  I  do  not  think  I  said  that, 

Q.  You  do  not  think  you  said  that? — A.  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Q.  Well.  you  told  the  truth  on  that  occasion,  didn't  you? — A.  I 
certainly  did. 

Q.  Did  you  get  a  letter  the  second  time  that  you  say  you  came  m  ?— 
A.  That  I  don't  remember,  Mr.  Hanecy. 

Q.  Hoay  many  times  were  you  eATer  in  Senator  Broderick’s  saloon  ? — 

A.  Twice. 

Q.  Only  tAvice? — A.  Only  twice. 

Q.  Never  there  any  other  times? — A.  I  neATer  was. 

Q.  And  you  neATer  got  anything  to  indicate  that  you  were  to  come 
there  except  that  one  letter,  which  you  sav  you  think  you  got  about 
a  Aveek  before  you  Avent  there?— A.  Well,  I  don't  remember  about  the 
second  time  Iioav  I  Avas  notified  or  Avhether  I  was  notified  at  that  time 

at  all.  #  -J  .Ju 

Senator  Gamble.  Hoav  did  you  happen  to  go  to  the  saloon  on  the 
first  occasion  there? — A.  Well,  that  is — of  course  I  went  to  his  place 
of  business  to  find  him,  just  as  I  had  before. 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  689 

Q.  Did  you  go  expecting  at  that  time  to  receive  something;  from 

Senator  Broderick? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Had  he  or  anyone  else  directly  or  indirectly  communicated 

rith  you  that  you  should  or  would  receive  any  sum  of  money? _ A. 

le  simply  said  at  the  time  that  he  gave  me  the  twenty-live  hundred 
hat  there  would  be  some  more  coming  to  me  later  on.  * 

Q.  And  this  was  later  on? — A.  And  this  was  later  on. 

Q.  And  you  went  there  then  with  that  expectation  ?— A.  I  did. 
Judge  Hanecy.  How  much  later  was  it  that  you  went  there 
gain  i  A.  That  I  don’t  remember.  Mr.  Hanecy;  it  might  have  been 
month  or  six  weeks.  I  clonk  remember  that. 

Q.  Tes;  I  know  it  might  have  been  several  months.  But  what  I 
’ant  to  know  is,  what  it  was,  to  your  best  recollection  ?— A.  Well, 
would  judge  it  was  six  weeks  later. 

Q.  That  is  your  best  recollection,  is  it?— A.  Yes,  that  is  my  best 
acollection. 

Q.  And  did  you  get  that  in  the  same  place  that  you  say  you  got 
le  other  money? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  was  Mr.  Broderick  there  when  you  went  there  the  second 
me? — A.  I  don't  remember  whether  he  was  in  at  the  time  I  got 
lere  or  not.  If  he  was  not  he  came  in  very  shortly  afterwards.^ 

Q.  And  what  time  of  day  was  that? — A.  That  was  in  the  mornino- 
so ;  perhaps  about  half  past  9,  possibly  10. 

Q*  And  what  time  did  you  leave  there? — A.  Well,  I  left  in  a  very 
lort  time  after. 

Q.  Yell,  how  long?  We  don’t  know. — A.  Oh,  perhaps  forty 
mutes. 

Q.  And  was  there  anybody  else  there  at  that  time?— A.  Oh.  there 
as  a  lot  of  people  going  in  and  out. 

Q.  Going  in  and  out? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  where  was  that  given  to  you?— A.  In  the  same  place— in 
,e  office. 

Q.  Right  in  front  part  of  the  building?— A.  Yes.  in  the  front 

irt. 

Q-  Is  there  a  safe  in  that  part  of  the  office? — A.  If  there  is  I 
)n't  remember. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  there  was  not?— A.  Well,  I  don’t  remember 

►out  that. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  there  was  not  anything  in  that  part  of  the 
ulding  except  what  you  say  was  a  desk?— A.  Well,  that  is  all  I 
member  of,  is  a  desk. 

Q.  Y  hat  kind  of  a  desk  was  that? — A.  'Well,  I  think  it  was  a  folcl- 
"  desk,  as  I  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  or  not? — A.  Yo:  really  I  do  not. 

Q.  1  ou  don’t  know  whether  a  folding  desk  or  a  flat  desk  like  one 
these  tables?— A.  I  rather  think  it  was  a  folding  desk;  that  is 
v  recollection,  but  then  I  am  not  positive  about  that. 

Q.  Was  it  open  when  you  went  in  there?— A.  Yes;  it  was  open. 

Q.  Yras  it  open  all  the  time? — A.  All  the  time. 

Q.  Y  as  it  open  when  you  went  through  there  in  the  morning 
fore  Mr.  Broderick  got  there?— A.  I  didn't  see  it;  I  wasn’t  in  the 
ice  before  he  got  there. 

70924°— S.  Itep.  942,  01-3 


44 


690  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  You  passed  through  there,  didn’t  you,  to  go  into  the  bar? — A 
No;  you  don’t  pass  through  the  office;  it  is  right  to  the  side  of  t hi 
office  that  you  go  in.  You  don't  go  through  his  office. 

Q.  Well,  is  it  not  right  across  the  front  of  the  saloon? — A.  Well 
it  is  just  in  one  corner. 

Q.  Yes,  I  know:  but  there  is  only  one  partition  across  and  that 
runs  right  across  the  saloon,  does  it  not  ? — A.  I  don’t  think — I  thinl- 
the  office  is  to  itself;  I  think  so. 

Q.  Well,  there  is  this  low  partition  that  runs  from  one  side  tc 
the  other,  isn’t  there? — A.  Yes;  there  is  a  low  partition. 

Q.  And  there  is  not  any  other  partition  in  the  entire  place  fron 
the  time  you  enter  the  front  door  until  you  get  to  the  back  door  goin< 
out.  is  there? — A.  Well,  my  recollection  is  that  there  is  a  pass  waj 
between  the  office  and  the  bar.  as  you  go  in. 

Q.  But  it  is  all  open,  is  it  not?— A.  Oh,  it  is  open;  yes. 

Q.  It  is  all  open  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Of  course  you  go  in  the  front  door  and  go  right  through  tha 
space,  pass  through  the  low  swinging  doors  or  the  short  swinging 
doors,  and  go  into  the  bar;  that  is  right,  is  it  not? — A.  Well,  the  wa; 
I  remember  it  is  that  this  office  is  divided  from  the  regular  part  o 
the  saloon,  but  by  a  low  partition. 

Q.  A  low  partition? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  sav?— A.  Yes;  that  is  my  understanding. 

Q.  And  there  is  only  that  one  partition  there,  isn’t  there  ? — A.  ! 
think  that  is  all. 

Q.  That  is  all.  Now,  do  you  remember  any  other  furniture  or  an; 
other  thing  that  was  in  there  except  what  you  call  a  desk? — A.  Y  ell 
that  is  all  I  remember  of. 

Q.  And  it  was  in  the  same  condition  when  you  went  through  tha 
it  was  when  you  went  in  there  to  get  this  money? — A.  Well,  I  don 
know  that  I  took  notice  to  the  desk  as  I  went  through,  but  when 
came  into  the  office  part  I  noticed  the  desk. 

Q.  You  noticed  the  desk  there? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  did  the  money  come  from  that  you  say  Senator  Broder 
ick  gave  you  ? — A.  He  took  it  out  of  his  pocket. 

Q.  He  did  not  take  it  out  of  the  desk? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  out  of  the  safe  or  any  place  else? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  But  he  just  took  it  out  of  his  pocket  and  handed  it  to  you?- 
A..  Yes  sir. 

Q.  What  pocket  did  he  take  it  out  of  ? — A.  I  think  out  of  his  coa 
pocket. 

Q.  The  tail  or  where? — A.  Inside 

Q  The  inside  pocket  of  his  coat?— A.  Yes;  that  is  my  best  recol 
lection. 

Q.  Did  he  have  other  money  there  with  it  ? — A.  I  didn’t  see  any. 

Q.  Was  this  the  only  money  that  he  had  there? — A.  That  is  al 
that  I  know  of. 

Q.  After  you  say  you  got  this  letter  that  you  got,  and  that  yoi 
can  not  find,  did  you  write  him  or  indicate  to  him  in  any  way  tha 
you  would  be  here? — A.  I  don’t  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  indicate  to  Senator  Broderick  in  any  way  when  yoi 
would  be  here? — A.  No,  sir;  I  think  not. 

Q.  Did  he  know,  in  any  way,  so  far  as  you  know,  before  he  go 
there  that  morning  at  about  10  o’clock,  that  you  were  coming  in,  o 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  691 

I 

iat  you  were  there? — A.  No,  sir;  except  I  think  I  asked  the  bar- 
mder  to  phone  him  that  I  w^as  in  Chicago  and  would  like  to  see  him. 
Q.  Well,  he  did  phone  him,  didn’t  he? — A.  Well,  now,  really  I 
on't  know  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Q.  You  don't  know  whether  he  did  or  not? — A.  I  don’t  remember 
oout  that. 

Q.  As  far  as  you  know,  he  came  in  there - A.  How  is  that? 

Q.  I  say,  as  far  as  you  know,  he  came  in  there  from  his  home, 
idn’t  he? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  met  you  there  for  the  first  time? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Senator. 

Senator  Johnston.  Now,  suppose  this  is  the  room  [indicating], 
ad  this  is  the  bar,  except  for  the  partition,  running  entirely  across 

le  front  of  it  as  you  entered - A.  No,  sir;  that  is  not  my  recol- 

ction  of  it ;  it  did  not  run  clear  across. 

Q.  And  that  was  across - A.  Well,  just  left  a  good  pass  way, 

erhaps.  I  don't  know  whether — I  don’t  remember  whether  the 
ir  extended  to  the  front  of  the  saloon  or  not;  I  don’t  remember 
lout  that.  I  don't  hardly  think  that  it  did.  My  recollection  of  it 
that  the  office  was  cut  off  in  one  corner;  and  then  there  is  a  parti- 
on  from  the  office  across  to  the  other  side  of  the  saloon  in  front  of 
le  saloon,  swinging  doors  as  you  go  in.  It  is  my  recollection — only 
fing  there  twice,  but  it  is  my  recollection ;  I  don’t  know  whether  it 
right  or  not. 

Q.  Your  recollection  now  is  that  there  was  a  partition  extending 
ear  across  the  whole  width  of  the  saloon,  first;  then  there  was 
lother  one  that  cut  off  the  office? — A.  That  is  my  understanding; 
lat  is  the  way  I  remember  it. 

Q.  Did  the  bar  extend  opposite  to  this  office,  as  you  call  it? — A. 
"ell,  I  hardly  think  it  did. 

Q.  Could  anyone  at  the  bar — could,  the  bartender  or  anyone  else 
e  you  while  you  were  in  the  office? — A.  I  don’t  know  whether  they 
>uld  or  not. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember? — A.  No;  I  don’t  remember. 

Q.  How  high  was  this  partition  that  inclosed  the  office? — A.  Oh, 
must  have  been — I  would  guess  5  feet  high. 

Q.  And  you  say  you  deposited  the  $2,500  in  the  First  National 
ank? 

Mr.  Austrian.  State  Bank  of  Chicago. 

The  Witness.  State  Bank  of  Chicago. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  it  in  an  envelope  or  package? — A.  Envelope. 

Q.  You  did  not  open  the  envelope  there  at  all  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  Was  that  bank  your  correspondent  here? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  were  making  deposits  from  time  to  time  to  your  credit? — 

.  Yes. 

Q.  To  the  credit  of  your  bank,  I  mean? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  balance  did  you  keep  there? — A.  Oh,  sometimes  it  is — 
ell,  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Well,  about  how  much  did  it  average? — A.  Probably  seven  or 
ght  thousand,  just  as  the  case  happened  to  be — I  don’t  remember 
bat  the  balance  was,  really. 

Q.  You  were  drawing  on  that  bank? — A.  Yes;  when  they - 

Q.  For  remittances;  whenever  you  made  a  collection,  you  would 
•aw  on  that  bank  in  Chicago  for  remittances? — A.  Yes. 


692  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  And  you  would  transmit  to  them  your  credits  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  other  credits  "during  that  month  with  the 
State  Bank? — A.  Oh,  1  think  so;  of  course  I  don’t  remember;  not 
being  the  cashier  of  the  bank,  I  could  not  answer  that  intelligently. 

Q.  Might  your  bank  have  deposited  another  $2,500  during  that 
month? — A.  "Why,  they  might. 

Q.  Did  you  deposit  the  $700  that  you  got  on  that  second  occa¬ 
sion? — A.  I  did  not;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  in  an  envelope,  too? — A.  Now,  I  don’t  remember 
whether  it  was  or  not. 

Q.  You  don’t? — A.  No. 

Senator  Johnston.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  made  no  other  deposits  at  the  State  Bank  of 
Chicago,  personally,  did  you? — A.  No;  no  other  personally,  but  the 
bank  did,  and  this  money  was  deposited  in  favor  of  the  bank. 

Q.  But  when  the  bank  did,  it  sent  its  deposits  through  the  regular 
clearance,  by  mail? — A.  Yes.  - 

Q.  They  did  not  come  up  to  Chicago  and  deposit  the  $2,500  in  cash, 
whenever  they  wanted  to  have  money  deposited  in  the  State  Bank  of 
Chicago,  did  they? — A.  No ;  they  transmitted  it  in  the  regular  course. 

Q.  In  the  regular  course? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  way  banks  usualy  do? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  is  what  they  call  a  clearance? — A.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  give  that  letter  to  airybody,  Mr.  Hoist- 
law? — A.  What  letter? 

Q.  The  letter  you  think  you  got  from  Mr.  Broderick? — A.  No,  sir; 
I  did  not. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  about  that  ? — A.  I  am  sure  about  that. 

Q.  Were  you  asked  by  the  state’s  attorney,  or  the  assistant  state's 
attorney,  of  Sangamon  County,  when  you  were  before  that  grand 
jury,  or  before  him,  were  you  asked  to  find  that  letter? — A.  To  find 
tbe  letter  ? 

Q.  To  find  it?— A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  you  for  that  letter? — A.  No,  sir;  he  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  him  about  that  letter? — A.  No,  sir;  I  never 
did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  anybody  that  you  received  a  letter,  until  you 
came  up  here  and  testified  before  this  honorable  committee? — A.  I 
never  did. 

Q.  You  never  mentioned  it  to  anybody? — A.  No,  sir;  I  never  men¬ 
tioned  it  to  anybody. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Burke,  the  state’s  attorney  of  Sangamon  County,  ask 
you,  when  you  were  before  him,  wThen  you  were  subpoenaed  by  him 
to  appear  at  his  office  and  to  appear  before  the  grand  jury  there,  if 
you  had  any  letter  or  communication  from  Senator  Broderick?— A. 
No,  sir;  he  "did  not. 

Q.  Did  any  of  his  assistants,  or  anybody  else? — A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Then  you  were  never  asked  anything  about  that  letter  or  any 
letter  or  any  communication  from  Senator  Broderick  to  you  at  any 
time? — A.  1  never  was. 

Q.  And  you  never  told  anybody  that  you  got  a  letter? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  From  Senator  Broderick? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  any  communication  at  any  time,  until  you  came  up  here  and 
testified  before  this  honorable  committee? — A.  I  never  did. 


. 

INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  693 

Q.  AY  'hen  you  were  testifying  here,  just  before  Mr.  Austrian  showed 
rou  the  deposit  slip,  with  the  date  on  it,  you  hesitated  about  the  date 
hat  you  say  that  you  met  Senator  Broderick,  and  said :  “  Well,  the 
'6th,  if  that  was  the  day.”  YYhat  did  you  mean  by  that  ? — A.  I  main¬ 
lined  all  the  time  that  I  thought  it  was  the  16th  that  I  was  up  here. 
That  is  what  I  have  stated ;  that  has  been  my  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  You  were  not  positive  of  it,  were  you? — A.  No,  sir;  I  was  not 
positive. 

Q.  And  3rou  are  not  positive  now  that  it  was  the  16th  that  you  were 
ip  here  ? — A.  Well,  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  But  you  are  not  positive? — A.  I  could  not  swear  it  was  the  16th. 
Q.  No  ? — A.  But  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  That  is  right.  You  never  have  been  positive  that  that  was  the 
late  you  were  up  here  and  saw  Senator  Broderick,  have  you? — A. 

So ;  only  to  the  best  of  my  recollection - 

Q.  And  you  never  have  been  positive  that  you  were  here  and  talked 
vith  Senator  Broderick - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object.  Let  the  witness  answer  the  other  question, 
dr.  Chairman;  let  him  finish  his  answer. 

Judge  Haxecy  (continuing).  On  the  16th  of  June,  isn’t  that  the 
act  ? — A.  Ask  that  again,  please. 

Q.  Y  ou  were  never  positive  that  it  was  the  16th  of  June  that  you 
rere  up  here  and  talked  with  Senator  Broderick  the  first  time?— A. 
vo;  it  was  only  my  best  recollection  that  it  was  the  16th. 

Q.  And  you  would  not  swear  to  it  positively? 

Senator  Burrows.  He  states  that  it  is  his  best  recollection. 

Judge  Hanecy.  All  right;  that  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question. — A.  All  right, 
Senator. 

Q.  I  think  you  have  stated  in  your  testimony  that  there  was  some- 
liing  else  coming  to  you,  something  more  coming  to  you,  something 
f  that  kind? — A.  That  is  the  remark  he  made:  “That  there  will 
e  something  more  coming  to  you.” 

Q.  Y\  ho  said  that? — A.  Senator  Broderick. 

Q.  Did  you  at  that  time  know  of  any  other  sums  which  were  com- 
ig  to  you  ? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  know  what  he  meant  by  that  expression  ? — A.  I  did  not. 
Q.  You  were  not  expecting  any  other  sum?— A.  No,  sir;  I  was  not. 
Q.  YY  hat  reply  did  you  make? — A.  I  didn’t  make  any  reply. 
Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all. 

Sen  at  oi  Gamble.  Did  ycm  accept  this  additional  sum  as  arising 
lit  of  matters  in  relation  to  the  “  jack  pot,”  or  otherwise? — A.  Now, 
eally,  I  don  t  know  what  it  w7as  for,  and  X  didn’t  ask  any  questions, 
ad  I  never  had  any  talk  with  anybody  regarding  anything  of  the 
io(l,  he  simply  made  that  remark,  and  that  is  all  that  wTas  said. 
Q.  Was  this  your  first  term  in  the  legislature? — A.  Yes — no;  I  w'as 
i  the  house. 

Q.  You  were  in  the  house? — A.  Yres;  a  good  many  years  ago. 

Q.  One  or  two  terms? — A.  One. 

Q.  One  term? — A.  Yes. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrow's.  You  wTere  not  expecting  any  other  sum? — A. 
o,  sir ;  I  was  not. 


694  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Gamble.  And  had  heard  of  no  other  sum? — A.  No,  sir 
no,  sir;  I  had  heard  of  no  other. 

Senator  Gamble.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  ask  that  he  be  kept  just  a  minute  until 
look  up  something? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  On  your  first  examination,  when  }Tou  were  here,  Mi 

Holstlaw,  didn’t  you  say  that  when  Senator  Broderick  handed  yo 

the  $2,500  that  he  didn’t  say  a  word  and  that  you  did  not  say 

word  ? — A.  Well,  now,  there  was  very  little  said,  and  I  don't  remem 

her  whether  we  did  sav  a  word  or  not. 

*/ 

Q.  Weren’t  you  asked  the  question :  “  What  was  said  at  th 
time?  ” — A.  After  I  received  the  money  I  don’t  think  we  did  say 
word. 

Q.  When  the  money  was  handed  to  you,  and  after  that,  Broderic] 
never  said  a  word  to  you? — A.  No,  sir;  I  don't  think  he  did. 

Q.  And  you  never  said  a  word  to  him  ? — A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Then,  he  did  not  tell  you  that  there  was  some  more  coming  t 
you,  did  he? — A.  Well,  that  night — I  don't  remember  whether  tha 
wras  before  or  after,  but  it  was  at  that  time.  It  was  at  the  time 
was  here  that  he  said  there  would  be  some  more  coming. 

Q.  But  you  are  quite  certain  that  when  he  handed  you  the  mone; 
that  he  didn’t  say  a  word  to  you  and  you  didn’t  say  a  word  t< 
him? — A.  I  mean  in  regard  to  that  $2,500,  that  there  was  not  a  won 
said  in  regard  to  that. 

Q.  Well,  was  there  a  word  said  in  regard  to  anything  else? — A 
Nothing,  only  he  said  there  would  be  some  more  coming  to  me;  tha 
is  all. 

Q.  Were  you  asked  by  one  of  the  members  of  this  honorable  com 
mittee,  “  Do  you  mean  to  say  ” — in  substance — “  Do  you  mean  to  sa; 
that  he  handed  you  the  money,  and  you  took  it,  and  he  did  not  sa; 
a  word  to  you,  and  you  did  not  say  a  word  to  him  ?  ”  And  didn’t  yoi 
answer,  “  That  was  the  fact  ?  ” — A.  Well,  when  he  gave  me  th 
money  there  was  not  anything  said. 

Q.  “And  there  was  not  anything  said  ” — weren't  you  asked  thei 
if  you  just  got  the  money,  and  nothing  was  said  by  Broderick  ant 
you,  and  you  took  the  money  and  went  out? — A.  I  stated  that  I - 

Q.  And  you  said  yes? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  him  finish  the  answer. — A.  I  stated  at  tha 
time  that  he  said  there  would  be  some  more  coming  to  me. 

Q.  You  are  quite  certain  of  that? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  said,  when  you  were  on  the  stand  before - A.  I  think 

stated  that  before,  that  he  said,  “  There  would  be  more  coming  t( 
me  later  on.” 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  That  is  all.  You  can  stand  aside.  Will  yoi 
need  this  witness  any  more,  Mr.  Austrian? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  may  be  excused  from  further  attendance. 

The  Witness.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  want  Mr.  Shurtleff  now? 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  committee  said  they  wanted  him. 

Senator  Burrows.  Call  Mr.  Shurtleff.  Do  you  want  John  Griffin: 

Judge  Hanecy.  No. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  695 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  do  you  want  John  Griffin  any 
longer  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Edward  Shurtleff,  called  as  a  witness  herein,  having  been  first 
duly  sworn  by  Senator  Burrows,  was  examined  by  Judge  Hanecy, 
and  testified  as  follows : 

Q.  "What  is  }mur  full  name? — A.  Edward  Shurtleff. 

Q.  "What  is  your  profession  or  occupation? — A.  I  am  an  attorney 
at  law. 

Q.  Are  you  connected  with  any  other  business  enterprise,  Mr. 
Shurtleff? — A.  I  have  other  business  interests;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  have  had  for  some  years? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "Where  is  your  home  ? — A.  Maringo. 

Q.  Illinois? — A.  The  State  of  Illinois. 

Q.  How  large  a  place  is  Maringo? — A.  About  2,500  people. 

Q.  That  is  in - A.  McHenry  County. 

Q.  McHenry  County? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  an  office  in  Chicago,  where  you  sometimes  come  and 
practice  here? — A.  I  have  an  office  in  Chicago;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  speaker  of  the  last  house  of  representatives  of  Illi¬ 
nois — the  present  house,  if  there  is  an  extra  session? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "Were  you  speaker  before  that  time? — A.  Twice  before  that 
time. 

Q.  You  are  a  Republican? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  elected  as  speaker,  first,  when? — A.  In  the  session 
of  1905. 

Q.  And  you  were  elected  by  the  Republican  majority  of  the 
house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "When  were  you  elected  again  ? — A.  The  session  of  1907. 

Q.  At  that  time  you  were  elected  by  both  Republican  and  Demo¬ 
cratic  votes,  were  you  ? — A.  1907 ;  well,  sir,  I  think  I  was  elected  by 
the  Republicans  in  1907. 

Q.  That  is  right.  You  were  elected  the  second  time  by  the  Repub¬ 
lican  votes  alone? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  third  time - A.  1909. 

Q.  That  time  you  were  elected  by  both  Democratic  and  Republican 
votes,  weren’t  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  Democrats  voted  for  you  ? — A.  I  think  all  but  two. 

Q.  All  but  two? — A.  Possibly  three,  but  my  recollection  is  two. 

Judge  Hanecy.  How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of  the  legis¬ 
lature,  Mr.  Shurtleff? — A.  Since  1901. 

Q.  Continuously? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  what  congressional  district  do  you  live — what  I  mean  is, 
is  your  senatorial  district  in  former  Senator  Hopkins’s  former  con¬ 
gressional  district? — A.  I  live  in  the  Eleventh  Congressional  District, 
which  was  Senator  Hopkins’s  former  congressional  district;  my 
county  is  in  that  district. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  mean. — A.  Other  parts  of  my  senatorial  dis¬ 
trict  are  not,  however. 

Q.  Some  counties  are  in  other  districts? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  speaker  of  the  house  of  representatives  of  Illinois 
at  the  time  that  William  Lorimer  was  elected  United  States  Senator, 
were  you? — A.  I  was. 


696  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Did  anybody  ever  give  you  any  money,  or  other  thing  of  value, 
at  any  time  or  place,  to  aid  in  anv  way  in  the  election  of  William 
Lo  rimer  as  United  States  Senator? — A.  They  never  did;  no,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  give  any  money  or  other  thing  of  value,  directly 
or  indirectly,  to  anybody,  to  induce  any  member  of  the  legislature, 
or  any  member  of  the  joint  session,  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator? — A.  I  never  did. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Did  you  ever  give  any  money  or  other  thing  of 
value,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  anybody,  to  induce  any  member  of 
the  legislature,  any  member  of  the  joint  session,  to  vote  for  William 
Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator?— A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  give  any  money,  or  other  thing  of  value,  to  any¬ 
body,  any  member  of  the  joint  session,  or  anybody  else,  because  any 
member  of  the  joint  session  had  voted  for  William  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator? — A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  make  any  promises  on  behalf  of  Senator  Lorimer, 
or  on  behalf  of  yourself,  or  patronage  or  any  other  favors  or  consider¬ 
ations  to  induce  any  member  of  the  joint  session  to  vote  for  William 
Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  have  no  recollection  of 
anvthing  of  that  sort. 

Q.  Well,  you  would  know  it  if  there  was  anything  of  that  kind  ? — 
A.  I  never  made  any  promise  of  any  kind  to  anybody  or  anything. 

Q.  Did  you  authorize  anybody  to  make  promises  for  you  or  for 
William  Lorimer  that  the}r  would  be  paid  or  would  receive  any  money 
or  other  thing  of  value  if  they  did  vote  for  William  Lorimer,  or  be¬ 
cause  they  had  voted  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Sena¬ 
tor  ? — A.  I  never  did ;  no,  sir. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  anyone  can 

suggest  in  strong  terms. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  wish  to  cross-examine,  Mr.  Austrian  ? 

j 

Examination  b}7  Mr.  Austrian  : 

Mr.  Austrian.  Will  you  read  the  last  question  of  Judge  Hanecy, 
please  ? 

(Question  read.) 

Q.  You  do  not  want  this  committee  to  understand,  Mr.  ShurtlefT, 
do  you,  that  you  testify  that  no  one  authorized  anyone  to  offer  any 
money  or  promise  or  reward,  or  patronage,  or  anything  else  to  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  house  if  thev  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  I  would  like 
to  hear  that  question  read. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  question  will  be  read. 

(Question  read.) 

A.  I  mean  the  previous  question. 

(Last  question  of  Judge  Hanecy  read.) 

Senator  Gamble.  What  is  the  answer  ? 

(Answer  read.) 

A.  I  think  the  answer  stands  to  the  question ;  that  I  did  answer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Bead  my  question. 

(Question  read.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  Strike  out  my  question. 

Q.  Mr.  ShurtlefT,  you  do  not  pretend,  or  want  anyone  to  under¬ 
stand  that  you  pretend  and  know  everyone  who  had  or  might  have 
had  any  money  for  the  election  of  United  State’s  Senator,'  do  you  ? — 
A.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it ;  that  is  out  of  my  knowledge  so 
far  as  1  am  concerned. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  697 

Q.  You  were  only  talking  about  yourself? — A.  I  was  only  talkino- 
about  myself. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  what  Mr.  Lorimer  did,  do  you,  sir? — A.  I  do 
not;  no,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  what  any  other  man  did  outside  of  your  pres¬ 
ence,  do  you  ?— A.  I  could  not  know  that, 

Q.  And  in  answer  to  the  question,  the  last  question  put  to  you  by 
Judge  Hanecy,  all  }ou  wanted  this  committee  to  understand  was 
that  3Tou  did  not  pay  any  money  and  you  did  not  get  any  money  and 
you  did  not  make  any  promises  of  patronage  or  money  or  anything 
else,  or  authorize  anyone  to  do  it  on  behalf  of  yourself  in  the  elec¬ 
tion  of  United  States  Senator;  is  that  correct? — A.  That  is  practically 
correct.  J 

Q.  T\  ell,  that  is  correct,  isn’t  it,  sir? — A.  X  think  so. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment.  That  is  all  at  this  time,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man. 

Judge  Haxeci.  There  is  one  thing  I  forgot  to  ask.  May  I  go  on 
and  ask  a  question? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Shurtleff.  you  are  very  familiar  with  the 

members  of  the  joint  session  of  the  "present — of  the  forty-sixth _ gen- 

^  ren  t  you  ? — A.  Of  the  house  members? 

Q,  ^  es.  Well,  3011  know  the  affiliations  as  between  Democrats  and 
Republicans,  too,  don't  you? — A.  In  a  general  way,  X  think  so;  I  an* 
not  so  certain  of  the  senate. 

.  Q-  Will  you  look  at  this  list  I  hand  you  of  the  names  and  affilia¬ 
tions  of  the  Democratic  and  Republican  members,  and  see  whether 

or  not - 

Senator'  Burrows.  Is  that  the  membership  of  the  house  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Of  the  entire  house,  Democratic  and  Republican. 

You  know  whether  a  certain  Democrat  or  Republican _ . 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  object;  that  is  in  the  house  journal  and  in  the 
senate  journal,  whether  a  man  is  a  Republican  or  a  Democrat.  Now. 

[  object  to  having  this  witness  put  his  construction  upon  what  is  a 
natter  of  record  in  this  State. 

.  Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  not  asking  him  to  change  that  in  any  par- 
icular.  We  were  asked  to  agree  upon  the  affiliations  of  the  members 
)f  the  joint  assembU. 

Senator  Paynter.  Do  you  want  to  tell  me  that  you  and  Mr.  Aus- 
rian  do  not  agree  upon  that  question  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  never  came  together. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  handed  counsel  a  list - 

Senator  Paynter.  I  would  like  to  know  whether  counsel  can  aoree 
ipon  that  question. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  handed  you  a  copy  of  the  Republicans  and  Demo- 
rats  in  this  State — a  list. 

Senator  Gamble.  It  is  just  as  well  for  the  attorne3Ts  to  discuss  this 
natter  outside  of  the  committee,  and  the  committee  insists  that  such 
n  agreement  should  be  reached  without  taking  the  time  of  the  com- 
nittee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  handed  counsel  a  list  ten  days  ago  of  the  Repub- 
icans  and  Democrats  in  the  house  and  the  senate. 

Senator  Gamble.  Possibly  I  may  be  impatient,  but  it  seems  to  me 
he  record  has  been  all  too  much.  ‘ 


698  INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  agree  with  you. 

Senator  Gamble.  Crowded  full  with  side  remarks  by  the  attorneys 
in  the  case. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  do  not  think  you  are  impatient,  Senator 
Gamble. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  this  list  is  prepared  and  said  to 
be  a  correct  representation  of  the  political  affiliations  of  the  member¬ 
ship  of  the  houses.  Will  you  look  at  it  and  see  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  handed  counsel  a  list  ten  days  ago. 

Senator  Burrows.  Will  you  look  at  this? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  not  know,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  don’t  know;  that  is  one  reason 
why,  I  suppose,  neither  of  us  had  gotten  together.  I  would  have  to 
appeal  to  some  men  like  Speaker  Shurtleff,  and  there  are  not  more 
than  two  or  three  men — very  few — that  know. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  correct.  That  is  right  here,  certified  to  by 
the  secretary  of  state ;  all  he  would  have  to  do  is  to  put  it  right  here 
in  this  book,  the  names  of  the  Republicans  and  Democrats  and  where 
they  reside. 

Senator  Frazier.  We  settled  this  question  some  time  ago.  if  I  recall 
correctly,  and  this  controversy  has  been  ad  nauseam.  This  commit¬ 
tee  decided  it  would  take  the  journal,  the  official  journal,  to  deter¬ 
mine  that  question,  and  have  the  official  journal  made  a  part  of  the 

record.  ' 

Senator  Paynter.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  in  this  book.  I  think  the 
committee  has  made  it  a  part  of  the  record.  We  will  do  so. 

Senator  Frazier.  It  was  made  a  part. 

Judge  IIanecy.  I  have  insisted  all  the  time  that  the  journal  should 
so  in,  but  I  have  asked  some  of  the  witnesses  here  the  alignment,  the 
affiliations  of  different  factions  in  the  house,  and  they  have  told — one 
of  the  witnesses  told  all  of  the  Tippet  Democrats  who  voted  for  Wil¬ 
liam  Lorimer  and  somebody  attempted  to  tell  the  Browne  Demo¬ 
crats  who  voted  for  Lorimer.  There  was  a  good  deal  there  indicated 
that  none  but  the  Browne  Democrats  had  voted  for  Lorimer.  I 
found  by  one  witness  on  cross-examination  that  16  of  the  Tippet 
Democrats,  including  Tippet  himself,  the  other  leader  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  faction,  voted  for  Lorimer.  Now,  then.  I  proved  that  there 
was  a  faction,  the  Northwest,  known  as  the  Fieldstack,  the  Troyer 
faction ;  and  then  there  was  the  Shurtleff  faction,  the  Deneen  faction, 
the  Lorimer  faction,  and  I  want  the  record  to  show  the  condition  so 
that  this  honorable  committee  may  know  what  the.  conditions  were  as 
they  existed  there,  not  merely  the  membership  of  the  house,  of  the 
generic  faction — the  generic  division  or  the  division  by  generic  terms 
of  Democrats  and  Republicans— but  the  subdivisions  in  both.  Now, 
it  seems  to  me  that  every  judicial  tribunal  should  have  before  them 
in  some  way  the  conditions  as  they  existed  there  at  the  time  that  the 
transaction  took  place.  There  is"  not  any  sinister  purpose  in  this. 
There  is  no  purpose  except  to  give  this  honorable  committee  the  con¬ 
ditions  as  they  existed  there  with  all  their  discordant  elements.  I  do 
not  care  about  the  discordancy. 

Senator  Paynter.  Could  you  not  now,  to  save  time — could  you  not 
ask  some  witness  the  names  of  the  Tippet  faction  that  voted  for  Mr. 
Lorimer,  and  let  the  committee  take  this  journal  and  tear  these  leaves 
out  and  have  the  official  stenographer  copy  them  as  part  of  this 
record  ? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  699 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  are  several  other  factions,  Senator  Paynter, 
and  that  is  what  I  want  to  show. 

Senator  Paynter.  This  list  shows  the  factions. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  want  the  affiliations. 

Senator  Paynter.  I  understand  you  want  to  prove  the  affiliations 
of  all  these  various  people  that  are  here.  If  you  will  select  the  Tippet 
faction  that  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer — you  and  Mr.  Austrian  do 
not  seem  to  get  along. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  know,  and  I  do  not  think  Mr.  Austrian 
would  know  any  affiliations.  There  is  nobody  that  knows  the  affilia¬ 
tions  better  than  the  speaker  of  the  house.  I  thought  that  was  the 
quickest  way— I  thought  that  was  the  speediest  way  to  dispose  of  it, 
to  let  him  take  that;  and  if  he  says  that  is  correct,  then  hand  it  over 
to  Mr.  Austrian ;  and  if  he  sees  any  incorrections  there,  they  may  be 
corrected.  I  thought  maybe  to  put  it  in  evidence  here,  either  as  evi¬ 
dence  or  any  other  way  that  may  be  agreed  upon  when  they  come  to 
deliberate  on  this  entire  record.  It  may  be  quite  important  to  the 
members  of  this  honorable  committee  or  the  larger  body  to  know. 

Senator  Paynter.  Well,  will  this  show  who  constituted  the  Tippet 
faction  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  Mr.  Chairman.  It  gives  the  roll  call  of  the 
nouse  alphabetically,  as  it  was  called,  and  then  opposite  the  names 
of  each  one  the  faction  that  he  belonged  to,  every  one  of  them  •  o-ives 
the  Democrats  and  Republicans,  and  gives  the  "total  number  in  the 
house,  of  Republicans,  and  the  total  number  of  Democrats ;  and  that 
has  been  a  question  asked  me  several  times,  how  manv  Democrats 
there  were  in  the  house.  That  list  shows  there  were  66  or  68. 

Senator  Paynter.  Now,  we  will  have  the  list  of  membership. 
Why  don’t  you  do  it  by  simply  asking  him  if  he  knows  who  consti¬ 
tuted  the  Tippet  faction?  Then  this  record  will  show  how  thev 
voted. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  want  to  show  the  other  factions,  too,  Senator 
Paynter,  and  that  is  the  shortest  and  quickest  way  of  doing  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  never  had  a  paper  submitted"  to  me  showing  the 
various  factions.  September  20  I  submitted  to  Judge  Hanecy  a 
compilation  showing  the  various  members  of  these  two  bodies.  'He 
objected  to  it,  and  the  Chair  sustained  his  objection.  Now,  I  object 
to  this,  and  I  ask  that  the  Chair  make  the  same  ruling  he  made 
against  me  on  the  20th  day  of  September. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  will  submit  this  so  the  committee  may  turn  it 
over  to  Mr.  Austrian  or  anybody  after  Mr.  Shurtleff  has  testified. 

Mu  Austrian.  I  desire  to  ask  counsel  a  question.  Was  there  one 
thing  in  the  compilation  which  I  handed  you  on  the  20th  of  Septem¬ 
ber  which  was  not  correct  or  accurate? 

Judge  Hanecy.  1  our  list  did  not  contain  all  the  information  that 
I  want  in  this  record,  and  that  assuming  that  this  committee  mav 
want  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit  to  let  the  witness  testify.  We  will  pass 
upon  the  questions  when  we  get  to  them. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  committee  desires  to  say  just  a  word  with 
the  permission  of  counsel.  The  official  journal,  the  proceedings  of 
the  house  of  representatives  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  of 
the  State  of  Illinois,  shows  at  pages  5,  6— pages  3,  4,  5,  and  6— the 


700  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

names  of  the  members  of  the  house  of  representatives  with  their 
political  affiliations,  commencing  with  Alexander  Lane,  giving  the 
residence  of  each  member  and  his  county  and  the  party  to  which  he 
belonged.  The  committee  desire  to  have  that  go  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  the  same  for  the  senate,  Mr.  Chairman.  That 
is  in  this  book  on  this  side. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  there  has  been 
any  formal  offer  of  the  journal,  although  this  honorable  committee 
has  suggested - 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  we  will  ask  to  have  this  go  in  the  record. 

Judge  Hanecy.  This  committee  has  asked  several — well,  I  will 
make  a  formal  offer  of  all  of  the  proceedings  of  the  house  and  senate 
in  the  election  of  United  States  Senator  on  joint  session  from  the 
first  day  to  the  concluding.  I  make  that  formal  offer,  Mr.  Chairman, 
of  the  house  journal  of  each  day's  session,  the  vote  as  shown  by  the 
journals  of  the  house  and  senate  for  United  States  Senator  from 
the  beginning - 

Senator  Burrows.  The  proceedings  in  the  joint  assembly  for  the 
election  of  Senator  from  the  first  to  the  close. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  addition  to  the  lists  of  the 

members. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  that  will  be  admitted. 

Senator  Paynter.  Judge  Hanecy,  could  not  it  be  agreed  here  be¬ 
tween  you  and  Mr.  Austrian  that  35  of  the  Democrats,  or  37,  as  the 
case  may  be,  of  the  Browne  faction,  voted  for  William  Lorimer, 
and  the  balance  of  the  Democrats  belonged  to  the  Tippet  faction, 
the  so-called  Tippet  faction.  I  say  the  balance  of  the^e  voted  for 
Mr.  Lorimer ;  not  all  of  them,  but  enough  to  make  53  or  55. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Not  all  the  Browne  Democrats  voted  for  Senator 
Lorimer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Thirty  of  the  Browne  Democrats  voted  for  Senator 
Lorimer,  and  the  balance  of  the  Democrats  who  voted  for  Senator 
Lorimer  out  of  the  house  wrere  of  the  Tippet  faction. 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  there  were  25. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Ask  the  witness  ;  that  is  the  point. 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  controversy  between  counsel, 
we  can  not  take  their  statement.  I  will  not. 

Senator  Burrows  Wait  just  a  moment.  The  lists  of  the  member¬ 
ship  of  the  house,  with  the  political  affiliations  of  each  member  of 
the  senate,  also  a  list  of  the  Senators,  together  with  their  affiliations, 
the  committee  desire  to  have  that  also  inserted  in  the  record.  Just 
the  lists. 

(Which  said  lists  last  above  referred  to,  consisting  of  four  sheets, 
so  offered  and  received  in  evidence,  were  marked  “  Exhibit  1-aa. 
K.  F.  L.,  10-8-10,"  and  “  Exhibit  1-bb.  Iv.  F.  L.,  10-8-10,”  and  the 
same  are  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 

[Exhibit  1-aa.  K.  F.  L.,  10-8-10.] 

JOURNAL  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  FORTY-SIXTH  GENERAL  ASSEM¬ 
BLY  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 

Wednesday,  January  6,  1909. 

At  a  regular  session  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 
begun  and  holden  at  the  Capitol  in  the  city  of  Springfield  at  12  o’clock  noon  on 


INVESTIGATION  OE  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOR1MER.  701 


the  Wednesday  next  after  the  first  Monday  in  January,  the  same  being  the  6th 
day  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1909,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of 
section  9,  article  4,  of  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

The  Hon.  James  A.  Rose,  secretary  of  state,  called  the  house  to  order  and 
presided  over  its  deliberations  until  the  election  of  a  temporary  presiding  officer 
as  provided  by  the  constitution. 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  T.  D.  Logan. 

The  secretary  of  state  designated  P>.  H.  McCann  and  J.  H.  Hogan  as  pro¬ 
visional  clerks  pending  the  temporary  organization  of  the  house,  and  directed 
Mr.  McCann  to  call  the  roll  of  rep  resen  tatives-elect  of  the  forty-sixth  general 
assembly,  compiled  as  follows  from  the  official  returns  on  file  in  the  office  of  the 
secretary  of  state: 


Dis¬ 

trict. 

Name. 

Address. 

County. 

[Alexander  Lane . 

1937  Archer  avenue,  Chicago . 

Cook 

1 

•{Francis  P.  Brady . 

1311  Michigan  avenue,  Chicago.. 

do 

John  Griffin . 

381  State  street,  Chicago . “... 

do 

[Paul  I.  Zaabel . 

815  West  Taylor  street,  Chicago 

do 

o 

Frank  J.  Me  Nichols . 

520  South  Winchester  avenue, 

. do 

Chicago. 

Geo.  L.  McConnell . 

408  Ashland  boulevard,  Chicago. 

do 

[Oliver  Sollitt . 

4020  Prairie  avenue,  Chicago.  T... 

do 

3 

Charles  Lederer . 

903  Chamber  of  Commerce^  Chi- 

do 

cago. 

John  P.  Walsh . 

728  Thirty-first  street,  Chicago. . . 

do 

Emil  0.  Kowalski . 

150  West  Forty-fourth  street 

Chicago. 

•  •  •  •  •  vlvs 

A 

William  Murphy . 

4358  Shields  avenue,  Chicago. . . . 

....  do 

ft 

George  C.  Hilton . 

5457  South  Ashland  avenue^  Chi- 

do 

cago. 

Morton  Denison  Hull . 

181  LaSalle  street,  Chicago . 

....  do 

& 

{Wm.  Tudor  Ap  Madoc . 

5023  Grand  boulevard,  Chicago. . 

_ do  . 

Charles  Naylor . 

4909  Wabash  avenue,  Chicago... 

do 

[Wdliam  F.  Zipf . 

1272  Lyman  avenue,  Chicago _ 

do 

Richard  P.  Hagan . 

2466  North  Paulina  street,""  Chi- 

....  do 

0 

cago. 

Robert  E.  Wilson . 

1180  Perry  street,  Chicago . 

....  do 

Wm.  H.  Maclean . 

Wilmette . 

7 

{Louis  J.  Pierson . 

Walter  A.  Lantz . 

La  Grange . 

[A.  K.  Stearns . 

Waukegan . 

T.ake 

8 

{Edward  D.  ShurtlefF . 

Marengo . 

MoHenry 

Thomas  F.  Burns . 

Belvidere . 

Rnnne 

[David  E.  Shanahan . 

185  Dearborn  street,  Chicago. . . . 

Cook 

9 

Edward  J.  Murphy . 

850  Thirty-fifth  street,  Chicago. . 

do 

Anton  J.  Cermak . 

1243  South  Trumbull  avenue, 

do 

Chicago. 

Johnson  Lawrence . 

Polo . 

Ogle 

10 

Earl  D.  Reynolds . 

Rockford . 

WdrmphnpT> 

I  James  H.  Corcoran . 

f  Henry  D.  Fulton . 

334  West  Sixty-second  street, 

Conk 

11 

1 

Chicago. 

|  ( hester  W.  Church . 

145  Lasalle  street,  Chicago . 

do 

[James  J.  O’Toole . 

6536  Marshfield  avenue, "Chicago . 

do 

Stephen  Rignev . . . 

Red  Oak . 

Stenhenson 

12 

{William  W.  Gillespie . 

Savanna . 

Carroll 

1  Martin  J.  Dillon . 

Galena . 

.To  Dnvip<;<j 

[Benton  F.  Kleeman . 

11417  Michigan  avenue,  Chicago 

Cook 

13 

Cornelius  J.  Ton . 

10752  Lafayette  avenue,  Chicago 

do 

John  J.  Poulton . 

9131  Exchange  avenue,  Chicago 

do 

14  L 

[Arwin  E.  Price . 

hJ  gin . ' . 

K'a.np 

frank  W.  Shepherd . 

...  .do. . 

George  W.  Alschuler . 

Aurora . 

[Thomas  Curran . 

682  South  Center  avenue, Chicago 

Cook 

15  . 

John  O.  Hruby,  jr . 

589  South  (enter  avenue[(’hicago 

.  do 

Edward  J.  Frost . 

701  West  Nineteenth  street,  Chi- 

do 

cago. 

Josiah  Kerrick . 

Minonk . 

W  ood  ford 

16  I 

Harrison  T.  Ireland . 

Washburn . 

M  arsh  a  1 1 

Michael  Fahy . 

Toluca . 

Edward  J.  Smelikal . 

720  Reaper  block,  Chicago . 

Cook 

17  1 

Emanuel  A.  Abrahams . 

322  West  Twelfth  street^  Chicago. 

. do . 

Peter  F.  Galligan . 

242  South  Morgan  street,  Chi- 

_  do 

cago. 

Charles  F.  Black . 

Maple  ton . 

Peoria 

18 

Lucas  Isaac  Butts . 

Peoria . 

Thomas  N.  Gorman . 

James  M.  Kittleman . 

Berwvn . 

Cook 

19 

Charles  A.  Schumacher . 

2092  West  Twenty-sixth  street, 

(  hicago. 

John  J.  McLaughlin . 

145  Lasalle  street  Chicago . 

Party. 


Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Democrat. 

Do. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do.  • 
Democrat. 
Republican 
Democrat. 
Do. 

Republican. 

Do. 
Democrat. 
Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican 

Do. 

Democrat. 
Republican 
Do. 
Democrat. 
Republican 
Do. 
Democrat. 
Republican 
Democrat. 
Do. 

Republican. 

Do. 
Democrat. 


Do. 


Do. 


Do. 


Democrat. 


is- 

ict. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Name. 


[Israel  Dudgeon . . 

< George  H.  Hamilton . 

|J.  W.  Allison . . 

Wm.  H.  Troyer . 

<  Frederick  E.  Erickson _ 

■[Thomas  J.  O’Brien . . 

[William  P.  Holladay . 

t  J.  Russ  Grace . . 

[Geo.  W.  Myers . . 

/Christopher  Beck . i 

/Charles  Richter . 

(Patrick  F.  Murray . 

Charles  Adkins . 

Homer  E.  Shaw . 

{Lewis  Hutzler . 

Chas.  L.  Fieldstack . 

Frank  J.  Wilson . 

{John  A.  Montelius . 

Wm.  H.  Wright . 

Daniel  D.  Donahue . 

/Albert  Glade . 

\John  O’Neil . 

(Jos.  S.  Geshkewich . 

J  Edwin  C.  Perkins . 

I  John  R.  Robinson . 

J  Charles  A.  Nelson . 

[Patrick  J.  Sullivan . 

{Louis  Ginger . 

A.  M.  Foster . 

Wm.  M.  Groves . 

(Mathew  Mills . 

Charles  E.  Erby . 

John  C.  Werdell . 

{Henry  Terrill . 

Henry  L.  Jewell . 

John 'Huston . 

{Thomas  Campbell . 

Frank  E.  Abbey . 

Henry  L.  Wheelan . 

Carl  S.  Burgett . 

William  T.  Hollinbeck . 

Polk  B.  Briscoe . 

(John  H.  Gray . 

\  Adams  Collins  Cliffe . 

[William  A.  Kannally . 

{George  H.  Wilson . 

Charles  E.  Bolin . 

Jacob  Groves . 

(Francis  J.  Liggett . 

t  Clayton  C.  Pervier . 

[William  J.  McGuire . 

{William  H.  Behrens . 

Louis  P.  Daley . 

Henry  S.  Shaphard . 

(Wm.  M.  Scanlan . 

<  William  R.  Lewis . 

[Lee  O’Neill  Browne . 

(Dell  D.  Browneback . 

<John  C.  Richardson . 

[Joseph  S.  Clark . 

(Guy  L.  Bush . 

•(Frank  L.  Parker . 

[Thomas  II .  Riley . 

(Charles  L.  McMackin . 

H.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer . 

Harvey  D.  McCollum . 

(Burnette  M.  Chipperfield _ 

Edward  J.  King . 

J.  H.  De  Wolf . 

{Wm.  Stevenson . 

James  M.  Etherton . 

Charles  Sumner  Luke . 

{Thomas  E.  Lyon . 

Harry  W.  Wilon . 

James  S.  Morris . 

(George  B.  Welborn . 

Wm.  C.  Blair . 

[Thomas  Tippit . 

J.  C.  Bardill . 

Norman  G.  Flagg . 

Michael  S.  Link . 

(John  A.  Logan . 

Wm.  E.  Finley . 

ICharles  L.  Scott . 


Address. 


Morris . 

Watseka . 

Essex . 

Chicago . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

Danville . 

Chrisman . 

Paris . 

Chicago . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

Bement . 

_ do . 

Chicago . 

Irving  Park . 

Chicago . 

Piper  City . 

McLean . 

Bloomington.... 

Chicago . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

Lincoln . 

Farmer  City 

Chicago . 

_ do . 

. do . 

Pekin . 

Rushville . 

Petersburg . 

Chicago . 

. do . 

_ do . 

Colchester . 

Monmouth . 

Bladensville.... 

Rock  Island _ 

Riggs  ville . . 

Rock  Island.... 

Newman . . 

Marshall . . 

Westfield . . 

Morrison . . 

Sycamore . . 

Sterling . . 

Quincy . . 

Milton . . 

Camp  Point _ 

Bradford . . 

Sheffield . . 

Kewanee . . 

Carlinville . . 

. do . . 

Jersey  ville . 

Peru . 

Grand  Ridge... 

Ottawa . 

Couden . 

Edinburg . 

Vandalia . 

Downers  Grove. 

Joliet . 

. do . 

Salem . 

Carlyle . 

Louisville . 

Canton . 

Galesburg . 

Canton . 

Tilden . 

Carbondale . 

Nashville . 

Springfield . 

. do . 

. do . 

Woodlawn . 

Mount  Vernon. 

Olney . 

Highland . 

Moro . 

Mitchell . 

Junction . 

Bridgeport . 

Gray  ville . 


County. 


Grundy . 

Iriquois . 

Kankakee... 

Cook . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

Vermilion . . . 

Edgar . 

_ do . 

Cook . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

Platte . 

_ do . 

Cook . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

Ford . 

McLean . 

_ do . 

Cook . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

Logan . 

Dewitt . 

Cook . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

Tazewell 

Schuyler.... 

Menard . 

Cook . 

_ do . 

_ do . 

McDonough. 

Warren . 

McDonough. 
Rock  Island. 
Henderson.. 
Rock  Island. 

Douglas . 

Clark . 

. do . 

Whiteside... 

Dekalb . 

Whiteside... 

Adams . 

Pike . 

Adams . 

Stark . 

Bureau . 

Henry . 

Macoupin... 

. do . 

Jersey . 

Lasaile . 

. do . 

Shelby . 

Christian.... 

. do . . 

Fayette . 

De'Page . 

Will . 

. do . 

Marion . 

Clinton . 

Clay . 

Fulton . 

Knox . 

Fulton . 

Randolph... 

Jackson . 

Washington. 

Sangamon... 

. do . 

. do . 

Jefferson. ... 

. do . . 

Richland.... 

Madison . 

. do . 

. do . 

Galatin . 

Lawrence . . . 
Edwards.. . . 


Party. 


Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Democrat. 

Do. 

Republican. 

DO. 

Do. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Democrat. 

Do. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Democrat. 

Do. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Democrat. 

Do. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Do. 

Do. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Do. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Democrat. 

Do. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Do. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Do. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  703 


Dis¬ 

trict. 

Name. 

Address. 

County. 

Party. 

(Fred  Keck . 

Belleville . 

St.  Clair 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

Republican. 

Do. 

Democrat. 

49 

-[John  L.  Flannigen . 

East  St.  Louis . 

[Charles  A.  White . 

O’ Fallon . 

do 

[R.  D.  Kirkpatrick . 

Benton . 

Fran  klin 

50 

-j  James  W.  Crawford . 

1  Sidney  B.  Espy . 

[Lewis  E.  York . 

Harrisburg . 

Saline 

51 

•[Charles  F.  Durfee . 

GolcondaZ . 

Pope 

[George  W.  English . 

Vienna . 

Johnson 

ABSENT. 


24 

Joseph  Carter . 

Champaign . 

Chamnaien 

28 

Byron  F.  Staymates . 

Clinton./ . 

De  Witte 

Democrat. 

[Exhibit  1 — BB.  K.  F.  L.  10/8/10.] 

[Journal  of  the  senate  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly  of  the  State  of  Illinois.  Wednes¬ 
day,  January  6,  1909.] 

At  a  session  of  the  general  assembly  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  begun  and  held 
in  the  city  of  Springfield  on  Wednesday,  the  6th  day  of  January,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  1909,  being  the  Wednesday  after  the  first  Monday  in  January,  it 
being  the  first  session  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  Hon.  Lawrence  Y. 
Sherman,  lieutenant-governor  and  president  of  the  Senate,  appeared  at  12 
o’clock  m.  and  called  the  senate  to  order. 

Prayer  by  the  Rev.  G.  W.  Dungan. 

Mr.  Jones  offered  the  following  resolution,  which  was  adopted: 

Senate  Resolution  No.  1. 

Resolved,  That  the  following  persons  are  hereby  declared  elected  temporary 
officers  of  the  senate:  Secretary,  James  H.  Paddock;  sergeant-at-arms,  Joseph 
Figueria. 

By  direction  of  the  president  of  the  senate  the  roll  of  the  senators  holding 
over  was  called,  when  the  following  answered  to  their  names : 


Dis. 

trict. 

Name. 

Politics. 

Post-office. 

County. 

1 

Chas.  L.  Billings . 

Republican  . . 

Chicago 

Cook. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do.  1 
Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Rock  Island. 
Henry. 

La  Salle. 

Will. 

Knox. 

Sangamon, 

Madison. 

St.  Clair. 
Massac. 

3 

Samuel  A.  Ettelson . 

do 

5 

Walter  Clyde  Jones . 

do 

7 

John  Humphrey . 

Orland 

9 

Edward  J /Rainey . 

Democrat . 

Chicago 

11 

Carl  Lundberg.  / . 

Republican 

do 

13 

Albert  C.  Clark . 

d  o 

15 

Cyril  J.  Jandus . 

Democrat. 

do 

17 

Edward  J.  Glackin . 

do 

19 

Charles  E.  Cruikshank . 

Republican . 

do 

23 

Neils  Juui . 

do 

25 

Herman  H.  Breidt . 

do 

27 

John  Broderick . 

Democrat . 

do 

29 

Harry  G.  Hall . 

Republican . . 

do 

31 

Frank  P.  Schmidt . 

do 

33 

Frank  Arton  Landee . 

Moline 

37 

B.  Frank  Baker . 

K  pwa  n  pp 

39 

C.  P.  Gardner . 

Mcnhota 

41 

Richard  J.  Barr . 

.Tolipt 

43 

Charles  F.  Hurburgh . 

Galesburg 

45 

Logan  Hay . 

Rnrinprfipld 

47 

George  M.  McCormick . 

Collinsville 

49 

Robert  S.  Hamilton . 

M  arissa. 

51 

Douglas  W.  Helm . 

. do . . 

Metropolis 

The  president  of  the  senate  announced  that  all  of  the  senators  holding  over 
had  answered  to  their  names. 

Mr.  Billings  offered  the  following  resolution,  which  was  adopted : 


704  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Senate  Resolution  No.  2. 

Resolved ,  That  a  committee  of  three  senators  be  appointed  by  the  president 
of  the  senate  to  wait  upon  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  and  inform  them 
that  the  presence  of  one  of  their  number  is  desired  in  the  senate  chamber  for 
the  purpose  of  administering  the  oath  of  office  to  the  senators-elect. 

The  president  of  the  senate  appointed  as  the  committee  to  wait  upon  the 
judges  of  the  supreme  court  Senators  Billings,  Breidt,  and  Broderick. 

The  roll  of  the  senators-elect  was  then  called,  when  the  following  answered 
to  their  names: 


Dis¬ 

trict. 


2 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

21 

24 

26 

28 

30 

32 

34 

35 

36 
38 
40 
42 
44 
46 
48 
50 


Name. 

Politics. 

Post-office. 

Lewis  C.  Ball . 

Republican . 

Chicago . 

William  M.  Brown . 

. do . 

. do . 

Albert  J.  Olson . 

. do . 

Woodstock . 

Henry  Andrus . 

. do . 

R  ockford . 

John  C.  McKenzie . 

. do . 

Elizabeth . 

Thomas  B.  Stewart . 

_ -.do . 

Aurora . 

Ira  M.  Lish. . . 

. do . 

Saunemin . 

John  Dailey . 

. do . 

Peoria . 

Edward  C. "Curtiss . 

. do . 

Grant  Park . 

William  H.  Delleabeck  (to  fill  vacancv)... 

. do . 

Danville . 

Henry  M.  Dunlap . 

. do..-. . 

Savov . 

Frank  H.  Funk." . 

. do . 

Bloomington. . . . 

James  A.  Henson . 

. do . 

Decatur . 

Walter  I.  Mannv . 

Democrat . 

Mount  Sterling  . 

James  F.  Gibson . 

. do . 

Carthage . 

Stanton  C.  Pemberton . 

Republican . 

Oakland . 

B.  F.  Downing  (to  fill  vacancy) . 

_ "do . 

Dixon . 

Campbell  S.  Hearn . 

Democrat . 

Quincy . 

Frank  W.  Burton . 

. do . 

Carlinville . 

J.  Jeff  Tossev . 

. do . 

Toledo . 

D.  W.  Holstlaw . 

. do . 

Iuka . 

Robert  J.  McElvain . 

Republican . 

Murphvsboro . 

Albert  E.  Islev . 

Democrat . 

Newton . 

J.  A.  Womack . 

. do . 

Karbers  Ridge. . . . 

W.  O.  Potter . 

Republican . 

Marion . . 

County. 


Cook. 

Do. 

McHenry. 

Winnebago. 

Jo  Daviess. 

Kane. 

Livingston. 

Peoria. 

Kankakee. 

Vermilion. 

Champaign. 

McLean. 

Macon. 

Brown. 

Hancock. 

Coles. 

Lee. 

Adams. 

Macoupin. 

Cumberland. 

Marion. 

Jackson. 

Jasper. 

Hardin. 

Williamson. 


The  president  of  the  senate  announced  that  all  the  senators-elect  had  an¬ 
swered  to  their  names,  except  Al.  F.  Gorman,  of  the  fourth  senatorial  district, 
who  would  appear  later  and  subscribe  to  the  oath  of  office. 

By  Judge  Haxecy: 

Q.  Mr.  Shurtleff,  how  many  of  the  Tippet  Democrats  voted  for 
Senator  Lorimer? — A.  I  could  not  say  now  without  consulting  the 
record. 

Q.  Well,  could  vou  by  looking  at  that  list? — A.  I  could  not  tell 
for  a  certainty. 

Q.  Could  you  after  you  examined  that? — A.  No;  I  could  not  as  to 
who  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer  without  consulting  the  record  at  the 
same  time. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  how  many  of  the  Browne  faction  voted  for  Wil¬ 
liam  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Browne  testified  30,  and  we  make  no  point 
on  it. 

Judge  Haxecy.  Very  well. 

Senator  Payxter.  I  do  not  think  that  he  testified;  I  think  he 
assured,  he  was  assured  it  would  be  30. 

Judge  Haxecy.  I  do  not  know  what  he  did  say. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Senator  Paynter.  he  gave  the  names,  and  there 
were  only  25,  and  then  you  said  White - 

Senator  Payxter.  The  names  of  the  parties  he  had  on  the  list. 

Judge  Haxecy.  What  other  factions  were  there  in  either  party 
in  the  house,  Mr.  Shurtleff,  at  that  time? — A.  On  the  Democratic 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  705 

side  there  was  the  Browne  faction  and  the  Tippet  faction,  which 
included  all  of  the  Democrats  in  the  house,  so  far  as  I  know,  with 
possibly  one  or  two  exceptions. 

Q.  That  one  or  two  of  the  Democrats  in  the  house  were  aligned  or 
affiliated  with  either  the  Browne  or  Tippet  faction? — A.  I  say  that 
I  would  not  be  able  to  say  which  side  they  were  affiliated  with. 

Q.  What  other  factions  were  there  in  the  house? — A.  The  Repub¬ 
lican  side. 

Q.  On  the  Republican  side? — A.  It  was  divided  into  factions. 

Q.  Xame  the  factions. — A.  Well,  my  friends  who  voted  for  me 
as  speaker. 

Q.  Known  as  the  Shurtleff  faction?— A.  The  Shurtleff  crowd. 
And  there  was  what  was  called  the  “  band  of  hope  ”  that  voted  a 
combination  for  five  or  six  different  candidates  for  speaker. 

Q.  And  then  there  were  some  called  the  Deneen  faction,  were 
there? — A.  They  were  known  as  Deneen  men  in  a  way;  mainly 
called  themselves  “  the  band  of  hope.” 

Senator  Gamble.  How  many  members  would  you  say  in  the  band 
of  hope  ? — A.  I  think  there  were  54  or  55. 

Judge  Hanecy.  How  many  were  there  of  the  Shurtleff  faction?— 
A.  Well,  I  think  actually  that  voted  for  me  on  the  Republican  side, 
I  believe,  24.  I  would  have  to  look  at  the  record  to  be  absolutelv 
certain  on  that. 

Q.  What  other  factions  were  there? — A.  Then,  what  is  called  the 
Northwest  Side. 

Q.  What  did  they — what  were  they  designated  as? — A.  They  were 
Troyer  men  that  supported  Mr.  Troyer  for  speaker.  It  seems  to  me 
one  or  two  voted  for  Mr.  Cleaman. 

Q.  They  w^ere  Republicans? — A.  They  were  Republicans;  yes. 

Q*  What  other  faction  was  there? — A.  That  was  all  the  factions 
I  could  say  on  the  speakership  question. 

Q.  On  the  senatorship  or  any  other? — A.  There  was  the  Hopkins 
faction  and  the  anti-Hopkins  faction.  Mr.  Foss  had  a  following  in 
the  house. 

Q.  And  who  else,  Mr.  Mason  or  Mr.  WTebster? — A.  Mason — Mr. 
Mason  had  a  few  votes. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Webster  have  anv  ? — »A.  I  do  not  remember  that  he 

lid. 

Q.  Well,  now,  have  you  named  all  the  different  factions  in  the 
house? — A.  On  those  two  subjects;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  looked  at  that  list  there  to  see  whether  that  correctly 
lesignates  the  affiliations  of  the  different  members  of  the  house, 
Democratic  and  Republican? — A.  I  have  not  looked  through  the 
Republican  list.  I  see  there  are  a  few  that,  are  classed  as  Lorimer 
men  and  some  classed  as  Shurtleff  men.  That  would  probably  be 
correct  as  to  the  different  propositions,  and  possibly  not  correct  as  to 
he  one  same  proposition. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  not  asking  now  as  to  the  speakership  alignment, 
Dut  on  the  senatorship.  The  record  showed  how  they  lined  up  on  the 
senatorship — the  journal  admitted  in  evidence;  it  does  not  show  the 
faction  they  belonged  to.  I  am  speaking  now  of  the  senatorship. — 
4.  Well,  Mr.  Ap  Madoc  is  classed  as  a  Deneen  man.  Mr.  Ap  Madoc 
roted  for  Foss  through  the  senatorial  fight  till  the  last  ballot. 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 45 


706  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LOE1MER. 

Q.  Then  who  did  he  vote  for? — A.  He  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer. 
Now,  Mr.  Beck  is  listed  as  a  Troyer  man.  Of  course,  that  is  on  the 
speakership. 

Q.  Was  Ap  Madoc  one  of  the  Band  of  Hope? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  they  were  all  classed  as  Deneen  men,  weren't  they? — A. 
Yes,  sir;  they  were. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  what  other  men  voted  for  William  Lorimer  on  the 
last  ballot  ? — A.  Mr.  Black  voted  for  him,  Mr.  Brownback.  Mr.  Burg- 
gett,  Mr.  Butts,  Mr.  Church,  Mr.  Erbv,  Mr.  Flanagan — there  is  one 
name,  Higgin,  I  think  that  is  a  misprint  ;  I  do  not  recall  the  name. 

Q.  Is  that  Hagan? — A.  Hagan. 

Q.  Is  that  the  Higgins  here? — A.  No;  that  would  probably  be 
Hagan,  on  the  North  Side.  I  do  not  remember  whether  Mr.  Cowalski 
voted  for  him  or  not;  Mr.  Lawrence,  Mr.  Logan,  Mr.  MacLean,  Mr. 
McMackin,  Mr.  Pierson,  Mr.  Price,  Mr.  Solitt,  and  Mr.  York  are  the 
house  members.  Thev  were  classed  as  the  Deneen  men  who  voted  for 
Mr.  Lorimer,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Q.  What  members  of  the  Troyer  faction  voted  for  William  Lori¬ 
mer  for  United  States  Senator? — A.  Mr.  Beck,  Mr.  Erickson,  Mr. 
Fieldstack;  I  think  that  is  all. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Hutzler  vote  for  him? — A.  I  believe  not;  I  do  not 
think  so. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Kichter? — A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  What  members  of  the  Shurtleff  faction  voted  for  Senator  Lori¬ 
mer  for  United  States  Senator?  What  about  Troyer;  did  Troyer 
vote  for  William  Lorimer? — A.  I  think  he  did;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  the  man  after  whom  the  faction  was  named.  What 
members  of  the  Shurtleff  faction  voted  for  William  Lorimer? — A.  My 
recollection  is  that  all  of  them ;  Mr.  Bush  did,  Mr.  Chipperfield.  Mr. 
Crawford,  Mr.  Dudgeon,  Mr.  Curran ;  Mr.  Erbv,  listed  as  a  Shurt¬ 
leff  man,  voted  for  me  for  speaker,  but  did  not  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer; 
Mr.  Gillespie  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer;  Mr.  Nelson,  listed  as  a 
Shurtleff'  man  here,  who  voted  for  me  for  speaker,  I  think,  did  not 
vote  for  Senator  Lorimer;  Mr.  Parker  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer, 
Mr.  Smejkal,  Mr.  Stearns,  Mr.  Zinger,  and  I  believe  Mr.  Zist. 

Q.  Did  any  of  the  Hopkins  faction  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for 
United  States  Senator? — A.  Why,  a  considerable  number  of  men 
who  had  voted  for  Mr.  Hopkins  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer. 

Q.  Well,  I  think  you  said  there  were  54  of  the  Hopkins  faction? — 
A.  That  was  the  Band  of  Hope. 

Q.  That  was  the  Band  of  Hope? — A.  So-called  members  of  the 
house. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Just  a  moment. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Have  you  told  how  many  of  the  Deneen  faction 
voted  ?  I  think  you  gave  that.  That  is  all. — A.  I  gave  the  list. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  desire  to  ask  a  question.  When  George  W. 
Meyers,  a  member  of  the  legislature,  was  on  the  stand  he  said  that, 
pursuant  to  a  suggestion  made  to  him  by  Mr.  Browne  that  he  go  to 
your  desk  and  speak  with  you  on  the  question  about  twenty  minutes— 
'about  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes — before  the  balloting  was  taken,  and 
he  says:  “Well,  he  insisted  upon  me  to  go  to  see  the  speaker;  that 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMEE.  707 

was  all,  that  was  the  end  of  our  conversation,”  referring  to  the  con¬ 
versation  between  him  and  Browne,  “  as  far  as  that  was  concerned.” 

Q.  Did  he  state  why  he  wanted  you  to  see  the  speaker? — A.  No,  sir;  he  only 
said  the  speaker  wanted  to  see  me,  and  for  me  to  go  and  see  the  speaker. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  speaker? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  conversation  did  you  have  with  the  speaker? 

I  have  read  that  much  to  lead  up  to  the  conversation. 

A.  He  was  standing  behind  his  desk  and  turned  around  and  we  shook  hands _ - 

I  think  we  shook  hands — and  he  says:  “  We  are  going  to  put  this  over  to-day” 
1  would  appreciate  it  if  you  could  help  us  out  or  go  with  us ;  something  to  that 
effect. 

Q.  What  did  you  reply?— A.  I  told  him  I  could  not. 

Q.  Did  that  terminate  the  conversation? — A.  He  said:  “I  should  appreciate 
it  very  much  if  you  could  see  your  way  clear  to  go  with  us.”  I  told  him  I  could 
not,  and  went  back  to  my  desk. 

Did  that  occur  ? — A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  Mr.  Meyers  coining 
to  my  desk  the  day  of  the  election. 

Q.  This  was  on  the  day  of  the  election? — A.  I  do  not  think  it  was 
possible  that  he  came  to  the  desk  on  the  day  of  the  election  after  the 
balloting  commenced  for  United  States  Senator. 

Q.  This  was  stated  to  be  before  the  balloting  commenced? — A. 
I  have  a  recollection  of  Mr.  Meyers  coming  to  me  at  one  time, 
and  I  could  not  say  when  it  was,  or  where  it  was,  and  asking  me 
about  the  subject  of  United  States  Senator  and  his  vote,  and  as  I 
recollect  it,  he  asked  my  advice  in  regard  to  the  matter.  I  would  not 
say  that  I  did  not  ask  him  to  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer,  but  my 
recollection  of  this  matter,  as  it  came  up,  is  this:  That  I  said  to  Mr. 
Meyers  that  I  would  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer  if  the  Democrats  in 
my  district  "would  stand  for  it,  if  they  "would  be  satisfied  with  it.  and 
if  I  thought  they  would  not  I  would  not  vote  for  Senator  Lorimer. 

I  remember  something  of  a  conversation  of  that  kind  with  Mr. 
Meyers  someAvhere,  I  can  not  tell  where  it  was;  I  can  not  tell  when 
it  was.  My  recollection  of  it  is  that  he  came  to  me  to  ask  in  regard 
to  the  matter  himself.  I  have  no  other  recollection  in  regard  to  the 
matter. 

Q.  Do  you  think  this  conversation  might  have  occurred  as  related 
oy  Mr.  Meyers,  substantially  ?— A.  Well,  I  think  we  may  have  had  a 
conversation. 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  mean,  Senator  Heyburn,  so  far  as  the  con¬ 
versation  related  to  Meyers  and  the  speaker,  not  so  far  as  it  related 
:o  Browne  and  Meyers? 

Senator  Heyburn.  We  are  referring  to  only  the  conversation  be- 
:ween  them.  I  read  a  question  or  two  before  merely  to  direct  the 
ittention  of  the  witness  to  the  circumstances. 

The  Witness.  I  seem  to  have  in  my  head  that  some  time,  some¬ 
where,  Mr.  Meyers  said  something  to  me  about  United  States  Sen- 
itorship. 

Senator  Heyburn.  Mr.  Shurtleff,  this  is  stated  by  the  witness 
Vleyers  to  have  been  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  before  the  vote  was 
aken,  about  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes? — A.  Well,  I  could  not  say; 

.  could  not  remember. 

Senator  Heyburn.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  For  my  information,  when  was  the  meeting  for 
he— -when  was  the  first  meeting  for  the  general  assembly  for  the 
lection  of  Senator,  the  date? 


708  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  January  6. 

Senator  Burrows.  January  6,  is  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

The  Witness.  January  6  was  the  convening  of  the  legislature,  I 
believe. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Oh,  yes;  it  was  the  10th. 

The  Witness.  The  joint  session  was  somewhere — the  22d,  I  would 
say  it  was  the  23d. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  23d  of  January  ?— A.  Somewhere  along  m 
there;  I  could  not  give  the  date. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  second  Tuesday  after  the  organization. 
Senator  Burrows.  I  know  when  the  organization  was.  I  want  to 
know  the  date  of  the  meeting  of  the  general  assembly. 

Senator  Paynter.  Of  course,  it  would  be  after  the  first  vote;  it 
can  be  figured  out. 

Mr.  Austrian.  January  6  the  legislature  convened  and  the  first 
separate  balloting,  I  think  was  taken  on  the  19th,  I  am  not  sure,  on 

January  19.  '  ..  .  A 

Senator  Burrows.  I  want  the  date  when  the  balloting  commenced. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir;  I  will  give  it  to  you. 

Senator  Burrows.  In  the  house  and  in  the  general  assembly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  little  pamphlet  I  gave  you  shows  it  all. 
Senator  Burrows.  I  have  not  it  here,  Mr.  Austrian.  The  two 
houses  vote  separately,  of  course.  I  want  to  know  when  the  first  vote 
was  taken  in  the  two  houses  and  then  the  first  vote  in  the  general 

assembly.  . 

Mr.  Austrian.  January  19  was  the  first  one;  that  is,  the  separate 

houses. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  the  first  joint  session  was  on  the  20th,  January 

20— Wednesday,  January  20.  _  ,  . 

Senator  Burrows.  Now,  Mr.  Austrian,  have  you  compiled  from  the 
record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  separate  houses  and  the  general 
assembly  all  the  votes— can  you  get  it  from  that  record  so  as  to  put  it 

in  one  body  ?  _  _  _  ,  , 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  can  get  it  from  the  record.  I  have  not  done  so. 

Judge  Hanecy.  We  will  have  these  two  leaves  torn  out,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man,  if  vou  wish,  from  the  journals  of  the  two  houses. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes.  Take  the  journal  of  the  two  houses  and 
take  these  leaves— all  the  portion  of  the  journal  which  shows  the 

vote.  .  . 

yjjv  Austrian.  From  12  o'clock  until  the  dissolution  of  the  joint 

session  ? 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  until  the  general  assembly  closed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Because,  if  you  put  everything  in,  you  will  ha\e 

page  upon  page.  .  ■ 

Judge  Hanecy.  From  the  beginning  to  the  close ? 

Senator  Burrows.  From  the  beginning  to  the  close. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  ask  the  witness  a  question? 

Senator  Burrows.  If  vou  prepare  that,  we  will  be  obliged  to  you. 
Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Shurtleff,  you  said  you  designated  some  men 
as  Deneen  men,  some  men  as  Shurtleff  men,  some  men  as  Tippett  men. 
some  men  as  Browne  men,  and  so  forth.  On  the  Republican  side,  e 
men  designated  by  you  as  Deneen  men  or  Shurtleff  men,  you  simply 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  709 

mean  they  followed — the  Shurtleff  men,  for  instance,  followed  you 
on  certain  propositions,  certain  legislative  propositions;  is  that  cor¬ 
rect? — A.  I  speak  practically  upon  the  question  of  speakership. 

Q.  Speakership? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  the  vote  on  speakership  was  there  a  faction  known  as  the 
Shurtleff  faction? — A.  Well,  I  suppose  to  some  extent  there  was. 

Q.  That  simply  referred  back  to  the  men  that  voted  for  you  as 
speaker? — A.  In  a  general  way  it  referred  back;  there  were  others 
that  went  through  the  session,  of  course,  differently  than  other  men. 

Q.  And  there  were  many  members  of  the  Shurtleff  faction  who 
did  not  align  themselves  with  the  man  you  referred  to  a  moment  ago 
as  actually  Shurtleff  men,  all  through  the  session ;  is  that  right  ? — A. 
Well,  it  split  up  on  different  questions. 

Q.  That  is.  you  did  not  control  them  on  the  questions  involved  be¬ 
fore  the  legislature,  did  you  ? — A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Deneen  did  not  control  the  so-called  Deneen  faction, 
on  these  questions,  did  he  ? — A.  I  do  not  think  so ;  not  all  of  them. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Shurtleff,  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected  on  the  26th  of 
May.  You  were  present  during  the  call  of  the  joint  session,  were  you 
not,  at  all  times? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  roll  call,  how  many  votes — now  I  am  talking  of  the 
roll  call — how  many  votes  for  United  States  Senator  did  Mr.  Lori¬ 
mer  get  ? — A.  You  mean  on  the  first  call  of  the  roll  ? 

Q.  On  the  first  call  of  the  roll  when  men  announced  their  votes. — 
A.  I  think  there  were  102  or  103 ;  that  is  my  best  recollection. 

Q.  Yes.  And  52  of  these  were  Democrats  and  51  were  Republi¬ 
cans,  were  they  not  ? — A.  I  could  not  say  as  to  that. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  ? — A.  I  could  not  say  as  to  that. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  remember  the  four  or  five  votes  who,  after  the 
first  roll  call,  changed  their  votes  to  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Yes;  I  re¬ 
member  a  squabble  over  that. 

Senator  Johnston.  Were  there  two  ballots  for  Senator? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir;  only  one. 

Senator  Johnston.  Only  one. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  were  they? — A.  There  was  Senator  Billings 
here  in  Chicago. 

Q.  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Republican. 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  I  think  Senator  Ettleson. 

Q.  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Republican. 

Q.  Those  were  the  two  in  the  senate,  were  they  not? — A.  They 
were  both  in  the  senate. 

Q.  Now,  who  in  the  house? — A.  They  made  a  commotion  through 
the  whole  roll  call,  because  they  expected  the  election  was  not  going 
to  be  until  the  second  ballot. 

Q.  That  was  their  understanding? — A.  That  is  the  way  it  came 

to  me. 

Q.  And  word  was  sent  to  you  by  the  speaker  of  the  senate,  was  it 
not,  to  permit  them  to  change  their  votes? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  be  enrolled  for  Mr.  Lorimer — is  that  correct — after  the  roll 
call? — A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  there  was - 

Q.  Ettleson  and  Billings? — A.  I  think  there  were  51  called. 

Q.  And  they  were  all  Republicans,  were  they  not? — A.  I  think 
they  were. 


710  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  two  members  of  the  house? — A.  I  could 
not  sav  from  recollection. 

Q.  Now,  assuming  they  were  all  Republicans,  as  you  say  they  were, 
and  Mr.  Lorimer,  as  the  vote  announced  by  you,  received  108  votes 
then  on  the  first  roll  call  and  only  got  104,  didn’t  he? — A.  Well,  he 
got  108  on  the  first  call  of  the  roll. 

Q.  That  is,  the  first  call  of  the  roll,  including  Billings  and  Ettle- 
son,  the  two  Republicans  in  question.  Is  that  correct  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  after  the  vote  of  the  four  had  been  changed - A.  Well, 

whatever  there  was  changed — of  course  the  roll  is  never  called  until 
called  complete. 

Q.  And  until  announced  by  the  speaker? — A.  Until  it  is  an¬ 
nounced.  There  was  a  confusion  over  that  proposition  that  started 
in  before  the  roll  had  gone  very  far. 

Q.  As  to  those  four  Republicans? — A.  As  to  certain  ones;  I  would 
not  sa}7  who  now. 

Q.  But  the  roll  call  as  completed  and  announced  by  you  of  108 
votes,  that  was  correct,  accurate  in  every  respect,  was  it? — A.  Weil, 
I  think  the  record  shows  so ;  I  believed  it  to  be  at  the  time. 

Judge  Hanecy.  May  I  have  that  question  read?  I  did  not  catch 
the  first  part  of  it. 

(Question  read.) 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Shurtleff,  when  Mr.  Ettleson’s  name  was  called 
he  voted  for  Mr.  Hopkins,  did  he  not? — A.  That  is  my  recollection, 
that  the  senate  roll  was  called  first. 

Q.  It  was  every  day,  was  it  ? — A.  Usually. 

Q.  It  had  been  for  weeks,  prior  to  the  26th  of  May,  hadn’t  it? — A. 
Well,  it  changed  around  occasionally,  but  most  of  the  time,  yes ;  I 
think  so. 

Q.  And  Ettleson  announced  his  vote  for  Mr.  Hopkins,  did  he 
not? — A.  I  say  I  think  there  was  confusion  over  that;  that  is  my 
recollection. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Billings  announced  his  vote  for  Mr.  Hopkins? — A.  I 
think  so. 

Q.  And  the  two  members  of  the  house,  when  their  names  were 
called,  announced  their  vote  for  Mr.  Hopkins,  did  they  not? — A. 
Well,  I  could  not  sa}^;  I  do  not  recollect  as  to  the  house.  I  do  re¬ 
member  of  Mr.  Ettleson  and  Mr.  Billings. 

Q.  And  those  are  the  only  two  there  was  any  fusion  about.  Is 
that  right? — A.  I  woidd  not  say  there  was  not  others  there.  Those 
are  the  onty  two  names  that  occur  to  me  at  the  present  time.  Just  a 
moment ;  there  was  possibly  one  or  two  more,  but  I  am  not  certain. 

Senator  Burrows.  Mr.  Austrian,  won’t  all  this  appear - 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  the  record?  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  Who  they  voted  for? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir;  or  how  they  voted.  I  mean  this  does  not 
appear  in  the  record.  Of  course  we  are  bound  by  the  record;  there 
is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Senator  Burrows.  How  each  member  voted,  it  will  appear  in  the 
record,  the  final  vote. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  final  vote,  certainly.  But  the  changes - 

Senator  Burrows.  I  understand  perfectly,  and  this  is  for  the  pur* 
pose  of  showing  how  they  voted  and  how  they  changed. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  711 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  on  the  roll  call  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  elected,  as 
I  understand  it,  there  were  53  Democrats  and  51  Republicans. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Air.  Austrian.  Making  104  votes.  My  understanding  of  it  is  these 
4  Republicans  came  over,  including  the  2  he  had  mentioned,  and 
made  108.  That  is  my  understanding  of  it. 

Senator  Burrows.  Just  to  show  it  that  way. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all ;  yes. 

Q.  What  had  you  ruled  as  speaker  of  the  joint  session  as  consti¬ 
tuting  a  constitutional  majority  of  the  joint  assembly? — A.  I  never 
was  called  upon  to  make  a  ruling  upon  that  question  as  I  recollect. 

Q.  Well,  there  was  considerable  discussion  about  that  ? — A.  A  great 

deal. 

Q.  And  you  had  reached  a  conclusion  as  to  what  constituted  a  con¬ 
stitutional  majority,  had  you  not? — A.  I  can  not  say  that  I  ever  had. 

Q.  You  always  announced,  and  having  failed  to  obtain  a  consti¬ 
tutional  majority,  I  believe  that  was  your  ruling,  Mr.  Lorimer  having 
received  a  constitutional  majority,  is  that  correct? — A.  I  think  the 
ruling  upon  that - 

Q.  And  upon  that;  oh,  I  beg  your  pardon. — A.  That  would  be  a 
constitutional  majority,  all  other  rulings  followed. 

Q.  And  the  ruling  followed  was  that  the  entire  membership  of 
both  houses - A.  Yes;  and  they  voted. 

Q.  The  entire  membership  of  both  houses  was  204,  wasn't  it? — 
A.  204.  I  believe  there  was. 

Senator  Johnston.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question.  Who  presided  at 
the  joint  session? — A.  I  did,  the  day  of  the  election. 

Q.  Does  the  speaker  preside? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  does  he  announce  the  result  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Two  hundred  and  four  was  the  membership  of  both 
houses? — A.  Well,  I  think  there  were  203;  I  think  there  was  one 
member  that  was  dead  at  the  time. 

Q.  But  the  full  membership  of  both  houses  was  204? — A.  Under 
the  constitution  there  should  be  204  in  both  houses. 

Q.  A  constitutional  majority,  if  the  constitutional  majority  ex¬ 
isted  by  the  majority  of  both  houses,  would  be  103  votes? 

Judge  Hanecy.  1  object  to  that  compound  complex  question. 

Senator  Paynter.  Is  this  witness  called  upon  to  interpret  the  law 
for  us? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  I  am  trying  to  get  his  ruling  upon  it. 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  did  not  make  any  ruling  upon  it. 

Senator  Paynter.  Let  him  state  the  facts.  We  are  not  bound  by 
his  notion.  I  won't  be. — A.  There  was  a  great  deal  of  question  raised 
as  to  what  would  be  the  result  if  there  were  only  10G  members  present. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  that  is  not  what  I  want  at  all.  If  that  was  the 
case  Hopkins  would  have  been  elected.  I  want  to  know  how  you 
ruled  with  reference  to  constitutional  majority  of  both  houses,  the 
number  required? — A.  Any  ruling  I  made  would  be  in  the  Journal. 

Q.  Those  are  the  only  rulings  you  did  make? — A.  I  do  not  know 
how  I  could  have  made  any  outside;  I  may  have  made  some  on  the 
street. 

Q.  There  may  be  some  that  were  not  reported  in  the  journal,  Mr. 
Shurtleff. — A.  I  do  not  see  how  there  could  be. 


712  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Did  not  you  announce,  as  the  chairman  of  the  joint  session, 
that  the  constitutional  majority  of  both  houses  in  joint  assembly 
were  103  votes. — A.  If  I  did  in  any  legislative  way,  it  would  in  my 
judgment  appear - 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  what  you  did  not  announce.  I  am  talking 
about  the  legislative  way  or  the  way  that  you  call  legislative.  Did 
you  announce,  Mr.  Shurtleff,  that  a  constitutional  majority  of  both 
houses  in  joint  session  would  require  103  votes? — A.  I  might  have 
expressed  some  such  information  ? 

Q.  I  mean  in  the  presence  of  both  houses  of  the  general  assem¬ 
bly. — A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  doing  that. 

Q.  Well,  that  was  your  information,  was  it? — A.  Well,  I  will  state 
this,  that  question  came  up  and  was  discussed  a  great  deal,  and  my 
recollection  is  that  all  I  ever  said  was  that  I  would  offer  an  opinion 
upon  that  and  make  a  ruling  when  we  got  to  it. 

Q.  And  you  never  did  make  a  ruling? — A.  I  don’t  think  we  ever 
got  to  it. 

Q.  That  is  the  Kleeman  faction  you  refer  to  in  reply  to  a  question 
put  to  you  by  Judge  Hanecy,  consisted  of  one  man,  didn’t  it,  B.  F. 
Kleeman,  himself. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  did  not  refer  to  that,  Mr.  Austrian. — A.  I  think 
Mr.  Kleeman — I  think  I  voted  for  Mr.  Kleeman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  did  not — you  were  not  one  of  the  Kleeman 
faction,  were  you? — A.  I  followed  him,  if  I  remember  correctly,  on 
one  or  two  ballots  for  speaker,  I  think  I  voted  for  Kleeman. 

Q.  Were  you  one  of  the  Kleeman  faction? — A.  I  said  I  thought  I 
voted  for  him. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  consider  yourself  as  one  of  the  Kleeman  fac¬ 
tion  ? — A.  I  have  been  a  friend  of  Mr.  Kleeman. 

Q.  Then  instead  of  being  of  the  Shurtleff  faction,  the  leader  of  the 
Shurtleff  faction,  you  were  one  of  the  Kleeman  faction,  is  that  cor¬ 
rect? — A.  Well,  I  do  not  know  whether  I  was  a  follower  of  the 
Shurtleff  faction  or  not.  I  got  to  a  place  at  one  time  where  I  had 
to  be  something,  and  voted  for  Mr.  Kleeman  as  speaker. 

Q.  The  factions  were  designated  as  such  by  reason  of  the  position 
taken  by  the  several  members  of  the  house  on  certain  different  meas¬ 
ures;  that  is  all,  isn’t  it? — A.  That  factional  difference  is  based  on 
the  vote  on  speakership. 

Q.  And  that  is  all? — A.  And  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Shurtleff,  Mr.  Austrian  said  that  if  one  con¬ 
struction  of  the  constitutional  majority  was  adopted  that  Mr.  Hop¬ 
kins,  the  former  Senator,  would  have  been  elected  Senator,  is  that 
the  fact?  Was  there  ever  a  ballot  under  either  construction  of  a 
constitutional  majority  by  which  Albert  J.  Hopkins  would  have  been 
elected  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Either  construction  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  that  is  what  I  said. 

A.  If  there  was  such  a  one  the  record  will  show  it.  My  recollec¬ 
tion  is  there  never  was. 

Judge  Hanecy.  There  never  was  such. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  all? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  713 


Bv  Senator  Gamble  : 

Q.  How  many  Republicans  voted  for  you  for  speaker  ? — A.  I  think 
there  were  24  or  25. 

Q.  What  was  known  as  the  Shurtleff  faction? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  you  received  all  of  the  Democratic  membership  in 
addition? — A.  Except - 

Q.  Except  one  or  two? — A.  Two;  I  think  it  was  two. 

Q.  How  many  Democrats  were  there  who  voted  for  you? — A.  I 
think  there  were  64  Democrats  in  the  house. 

Q.  Now.  who  was  the  opposing  candidate  for  speaker  against 
you  ? — A.  Edward  J.  King,  of  Galesburg. 

Q.  And  the  votes  he  received  were  all  Republican  votes? — A.  Yes, 
sir.  Possibly  he  had  two  Democratic  votes,  this  I  don’t  know;  I 
am  not  certain  as  to  that. 

Q.  Now,  was  the  line  of  demarkation  which  was  drawn  in  the 
speakership  contest  in  the  election  of  speaker,  did  that  project  itself 
through  the  general  session  of  the  legislature? — A.  I  do  not  think 

it  did. 

Q.  It  ended  with  the  election  of  speaker? — A.  I  think  so. 

Senator  Gamble.  I  think  that  is  all. 

Senator  Burrows.  Do  you  need  this  witness  any  more  ? 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Burrows.  You  can  be  excused.  We  are  greatly  obliged 
to  you.  The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived  we  will  take  a 
recess  until  2  o’clock. 

(And  thereupon  an  adjournment  was  taken  until  2  o’clock  of  the 
same  day,  Saturday,  October  8,  1910.) 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 


Saturday,  October  8,  1910. 

At  2  o’clock  p.  m.  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  where¬ 
upon  the  following  proceedings  were  had : 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  anything  further? 

Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Burrows.  Have  you  anything  further,  Mr.  Austrian? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all  at  this  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  testimony,  then,  as  far  as  counsel  are  con¬ 
cerned,  is  closed.  Now,  what  is  the  wish  of  counsel  in  regard  to  argu¬ 
ment,  if  anything? 

Judge  Hanecy.  My  wish,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  desire  of  the 
committee. 

Senator  Burrows.  And  you,  Mr.  Austrian? 

Mr.  Austrian.  While  mv  wish  would  be  subject  to  the  desire  of 
the  committee,  yet  my  preference  is  that  an  early  argument  be  per¬ 
mitted  at  the  meeting  of  the  whole  committee,  if  possible,  if  that  is 
the  practice.  I  do  not  know  what  the  practice  is. 

Judge  Hanecy.  If  we  are  going  to  have  an  oral  argument,  and  I 
would  like  to  argue  it  orally,  while  I  do  not  object  to  arguing  it  be¬ 
fore  anybody  else,  yet  it  seems  to  me  that  an  oral  argument  would  be 
the  most  effectual  before  this  subcommittee.  If  it  is  before  a  larger 
body,  an  oral  argument,  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  very  much  extended 
beyond  what  it  ordinarily  would  be  because  of  the  necessity  of  giving 


714  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

\ 

information  to  many  who  were  not  here.  It  seems  to  me  whether 
argument  is  permitted  before  the  full  committee  will  depend  upon 
the  action  of  the  committee  itself.  The  subcommittee,  I  understand, 
could  not  determine  that  question. 

I  suppose  the  committee  does  desire  that  a  brief  should  be  prepared 
on  each  side,  a  full,  comprehensive  brief  of  the  points  in  the  case  on 

each  side,  and  have  the  briefs  submitted  to  the  committee  sav  within 

#  ' 

thirty  days. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  have  my  brief  ready  for  the  committee,  and 
I  will  have  it  in  the  hands  of  each  member  of  the  committee  probably 
some  days  before  the  thirty  days. 

Senator  Burrows.  Thirty  days,  then,  will  be  satisfactory  to  you? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Very. 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  it  satisfactory  to  you,  Judge? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Yes;  Mr.  Chairman.  However,  it  seems  to  me  that 
we  ought  to  have  some  time  after  we  get  their  brief  to  present  ours. 
There  may  be  matters  dealt  with  in  their  brief,  and  probably  will  be, 
that  we  know  nothing  about. 

Senator  Burrows.  Well,  it  is  supposed  that  the  usual  courtesies 
between  counsel,  between  attorneys,  will  prevail,  and  that  the  brief 
of  Mr.  Austrian  will  be  shown  to  the  other  side  and  they  have  an 
opportunity  to  answer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  would  be  very  glad  to  enter  into  this  arrange¬ 
ment:  If  counsel  expects  to  see  my  brief,  I  should  certainly  have  the 
right  to  reply  to  his. 

Senator  Gamble.  Yes. 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. 

Judge  IIanecy.  Yes;  I  would  be  perfectly  willing - 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  simply  in  order  that  I  may  see  his  brief,  and 
I  will  give  him  my  brief  in  twenty  days,  and  he  will  give  me  his 
brief  in  fifteen  days - 

Senator  Gamble.  Thereafter. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Thereafter.  And  I  will  get  my  reply  within  seven 
days. 

Senator  Burrows.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  that  is  satisfactorv. 

Senator  Johnston.  Suppose  that  it  is  agreed  within  twenty  days, 
you  could  furnish  each  other  with  your  briefs. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Well,  I  will  have  my  brief  ready  for  the  other 
side - 

Judge  Hanecy.  You  could  have  ten  days  in  which  to  make  }mur 
brief  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  To  make  a  reply? 

Judge  Hanecy.  No;  but - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  exchange  briefs  with  Judge  Hanecy  within 
twenty  days  from  this  date. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  then  either  side  will  have  a  chance  to  reply  to 
the  other's  brief  wdthin  tw’enty  days. 

Senator  Burrow’s.  Yes;  either  side  w’ill  have  a  chance  to  reply  to 
the  other's  brief  w’ithin  ten  days  thereafter. 

Senator  Johnston.  And  you  will  make  your  brief  to  the  committee 
within  thirty  days. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORTMER.  715 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes;  of  course,  it  might  be  a  day  over,  on  account 
of  the  mails. 

Senator  Burrows.  Of  course. 

Senator  Johnston.  Yes;  I  understand. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  would  suggest,  that  if  we  are  going  to  be  held 
strictly  to  it,  to  that  length  of  time,  it  might  embarrass  me,  because 
the  supreme  court  of  the  State  is  now  sitting,  and  the  appellate  court 
is  now  sitting.  They  both  commenced  their  terms  the  first  Tuesday 
after  the  first  Monday  in  this  month,  and  I  have  had  many  matters 
put  aside  and  waiting  for  me,  and  I  may  have  to  go  in — in  fact.  1 
know  that  the  fact  I  am  released  from  this  engagement  here  now, 
would  be  sufficient  to  compel  me  to  go  into  other  proceedings,  and  I 
•nav  not  have  the  time  to  prepare  that  brief  within  twenty  days,  but 
F  assume  the  committee  is  not  going  to  hold  us  strictly  to  the  exact 
:wentv  days,  if  other  engagements  should  interfere.  I  have  no  desire 
:o  delay  it  at  all,  but  the  practice  of  our  court  is  that  actual  engage¬ 
ment  in  court  is  sufficient  reason  for  passing  a  case,  and  the  courts 
lave  all,  where  I  have  had  matters  before,  have  recognized  this  as  an 
engagement  in  court,  and  have  deferred  other  matters. 

(On  the  matter  of  the  time  for  filing  briefs,  after  receiving  sugges- 
ions  from  counsel,  the  following  statement  was  made^  bv  the 
•hairman.) 

Senator  Burrows.  It  is  understood  by  the  committee  that  Mr.  Aus- 
rian  is  to  furnish  his  brief  in  twenty  days  from  to-day _ 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  satisfactory. 

Senator  Burrows  (continuing).  And  the  other  side  will  have  ten 
lays  after  that  to  submit  their  briefs  and  such  reply  as  they  see  fit 
o  make  to  Mr.  Austrian’s  brief,  and  thereafter  seven  days  for  Mr. 
Vustrian’s  reply.  All  of  the  briefs  and  replies  will  be  sent  to  each 
nember  of  the  committee  as  soon  as  prepared,  so  that  the  committee 
•an  have  plenty  of  time  to  look  the  matter  over. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  served  upon  respective  counsel  within  the 
ime  allowed. 

Senator  Burrows.  Yes;  counsel  to  be  supplied  with  the  briefs  of 
he  opposite  side. 

Judge  Hanecy.  Mr.  Chairman,  will  there  be  oral  arguments  after 
hat  before  the  subcommittee? 

Senator  Burrows.  That  can  not  be  determined  by  us  now.  The 
•ommittee,  of  course,  reserves  to  itself  the  right  to  take  such  course 
n  the  examination  hereafter  as  it  deems  necessary.  The  committee 
s  not  estopped  from  calling  further  witnesses,  if  it  desires,  and  if 
he  committee  should  ask  for  further  testimony,  why,  of  course,  that 
ight  is  reserved,  and  counsel  will  be  advised  if  we  do  desire  further 
estimonv. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  one  thing  be  understood,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
hat  is  that  we  desire,  or  we  join  in  the  desire  of  the  other  side  for 
n  opportunity  for  an  oral  argument. 

Senator  Burrows.  Certainly. 

Senator  Paynter.  Before  the  subcommittee  or  before  the  full  com- 
nittee? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Preferably  before  the  fully  committee,  but  if  it  is 
tot  the  usual  course  of  practice,  then  before  such  committee  as  the 
>ractice  warrants.  I  do  not  know  what  the  practice  is. 


716  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Judge  Haxecy.  My  suggestion  is  that  if  we  are  to  have  an  oral 
argument  that  we  be  given  an  opportunity  to  argue  it  before  this 
committee. 

Senator  Burrows.  Before  the  subcommittee  ? 

Judge  Haxecy.  Before  the  subcommittee. 

Senator  Payxter.  You  do  not  care  to  argue  it  now? 

Judge  Haxecy.  I  will  argue  now,  if  the  committee  desires,  but  of 
course  I  could  not  argue  it  now  as  fully  nor  as  carefully  as  I  could 
if  I  had  more  time,  and  not  as  carefully  as  I  could  at  a  later  time. 
The  only  suggestion  I  have  to  make  in  that  regard  is  that  it  will 
probably  shorten  the  oral  argument  very  much  if  it  were  before  this 
subcommittee,  rather  than  a  larger  body,  because  this  committee  is 
familiar  with  everything  that  has  taken  place  here,  as  well  as  coun¬ 
sel,  and  if  the  argument  were  made  before  this  subcommittee  we 
might  avoid  a  very  long  argument  or  explanation  that  would  have  to 
be  gone  into  if  it  were  before  some  other  Senators  who  are  not  pres¬ 
ent  here  on  this  subcommittee. 

Senator  Burrows.  We  think  that  it  is  understood. 

Senator  Johxstox.  Now,  when  are  those  briefs  to  be  filed? 

Senator  Burrows.  Let  the  reporter  read  the  statement  of  the 
chair,  in  reference  to  that  matter. 

(Statement  referred  to  was  thereupon  read  by  the  reporter.) 

Mr.  Austriax.  Just  insert  there:  Briefs  to  be  furnished  and  ex¬ 
changed  within  that  time. 

Senator  Burrows.  The  question  of  whether  an  oral  argument 
will  be  granted  before  the  full  or  subcommittee,  counsel  will  under¬ 
stand,  is  open  yet  for  further  consideration  by  the  committee.  Now. 
counsel  will  understand  that  the  committee  will  call  anyone  whom  it 
thinks  necessary  to  throw'  any  additional  light  on  the  case,  for  the 
reason  that  we  want  to  make  the  examination  thorough  and  complete. 
It  this  witness  or  party,  Mr.  Wilson,  should  be  discovered  anywhere 
this  side  of  the  North  Pole,  wTe  shall  want  him  before  the  final  deter¬ 
mination  of  the  case,  and  we  shall  want  any  other  wutness  who  we 

deem  material,  of  course.  Counsel  will  be  notified  if  we  desire  anv 
•  "  /»  * 
other  witnesses,  or  course. 

Is  there  anything  further  to  submit,  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  Austriax.  No,  sir:  except  on  behalf  of  myself  and  associates. 
I  desire  to  thank  the  committee  for  the  very  patient  hearing  they 
have  accorded  us. 

Judge  Haxecy.  In  which,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen.  I  desire 
to  fully  concur,  both  to  the  committee  as  a  wdiole  and  to  the  individ¬ 
ual  membership,  for  the  uniform  courtesy  and  impartiality  of  the 
committee  and  the  individual  members  during  this  entire  hearing. 

Mr.  Dav'Sox.  If  I  may  be  permitted  at  this  time  I  desire  to  thank 
the  committee  for  the  courtesy  extended  me  on  behalf  of  my  clients, 
and  I  also  desire  to  thank  the  committee  on  their  behalf. 

Senator  Burrovis.  The  committee  appreciates  these  expressions  of 
approval,  and  I  have  no  hesitancy  in  saying,  on  behalf  of  the  com¬ 
mittee,  that  we  are  greatly  indebted  to  counsel  on  either  side  for  their 
assistance  in  this  investigation,  and  we  also  wish  to  return  our  thanks 
to  the  press  for  its  very  courteous  treatment. 

The  committee  will  stand  adjourned,  subject  to  the  call  of  the 
chairman  of  the  committee. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  717 
WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  7,  1910. 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS. 

Hearing  resumed  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  at  the  room  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  in  the  Capitol,  on  Wednesday. 
December  7,  at  11  o’clock  in  the  forenoon,  the  following  members  of 
the  subcommittee  being  present:  Hon.  J.  C.  Burrows  (chairman), 
Hon.  Robert  J.  Gamble,  Hon.  Weldon  B.  Heyburn,  Hon.  Morgan 
G.  Bulkeley,  Hon.  James  B.  Frazier,  Hon.  Thomas  H.  Paynter,  Hon. 
Joseph  F.  Johnston. 

Robert  E.  Wilson,  sworn,  upon  direct  examination  by  Mr.  Austrian 
testified  as  follows: 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson,  what  is  your  full  name? — A.  Robert  E.  Wilson. 

Q,.  What  is  your  age? — A.  Fortv-two  years. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside,  Mr.  Wilson? — A.  4025  Perry  street. 

Q.  Chicago? — A.  Chicago. 

Q.  You  reside  on  Perry  street,  or  Perry  avenue  as  it  is  sometimes 
called? — A.  No;  I  know  there  is  a  Perry  avenue  on  the  south  side. 
I  live  on  Perry  street. 

Q.  You  resided  there  during  the  year  1910? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  business,  Mr.  Wilson? — A.  Well,  I  am  in  the 
real  estate  business  with  my  brother;  he  runs  the  business  and  I  am 
working  for  him. 

Q.  You  have  an  office  conjointly  with  him? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  what  you  mean? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson,  were  you  a  member  of  the  forty-sixth  general 
assembly  of  the  State  of  Illinois? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Republican  or  Democrat? — A.  Democrat. 

Q.  Upper  or  lower  house? — A.  Lower. 

Q.  Was  that  your  first  session  in  the  Illinois  legislature? — A.  No, 
sir:  I  was  in  the  forty-fifth  session  also. 

Q.  Each  of  those  sessions  by  law  is  fixed  at  two  years  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  the  term  of  office? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Yes;  the  term  is  supposed  to  be  two  years,  is  that  it? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

.  Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  in  the  forty- 
sixth  general  assembly? — A.  I  was;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  acquaintance  casual  or  intimate? — A.  Well,  it  was 
quite  intimate.  I  considered  him  a  personal  friend. 

Q.  And  you  were  a  personal  friend  of  his? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  a  personal  friend  of  Lee  O’Neill  Browne? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Were  you  one  of  his  so-called  “  minority  faction  ”  in  the 
house? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  had  been  from  the  beginning  of  that  assembly,  had  you 
not — the  forty-sixth  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  on  the 
26th  of  May,  1909? — A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  vote  you  cast  for  Mr.  Lorimer  for  United 
States  Senator? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  vote  you  cast  for  any  Republican  during  the 
caucusing  and  electing  of  United  States  Senator  in  the  forty-sixth 
general  assembly? — No,  sir. 


718  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  For  what  other  Republican  had  you  voted? — A.  Edward  D. 
Shurtleff. 

Q.  Edward  D.  Shurtleff,  the  speaker  of  the  forty-sixth  general 
assembly? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  often? — A.  Once. 

Q.  Once — when  ? — A.  Well,  I  can  not  say  exactly  as  to  that ;  some 
time — probably  two  weeks — two  weeks,  probably,  before  Mr.  Lori- 
mer's  election. 

Q.  Prior  to  that— subsequent  to  that — did  you  vote  for, any  other 
Republican? — A.  X  o,  sir. 

Q.  Xow,  Mr.  Wilson,  the  subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Privi¬ 
leges  and  Elections  met  in  the  city  of  Chicago  on  or  about  the  20th 
day  of  September.  1909 — 1910, 1  should  say.  Were  you  aware  of  that 
fact? — A.  I  was,  afterwards;  yes  sir. 

Q,  You  say  “afterwards?” — A.  After  they  had  met  I  knew  of  it. 

Q.  When  for  the  first  time  were  you  aware  of  the  fact  that  the 
subcommittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  the  United  States  Senate 
met  in  the  city  of  Chicago  on  or  about  that  time? — A.  Well,  the  only 
time  that  I  knew  that  they  had  met  was  when  I  got  back;  I  had  been 
away,  you  understand :  I  went  awav,  and  I  got  back  the  dav  before 
the  last  registration;  that  was,  I  think,  the  17th.  Xo;  I  caivt  give 
you  the  date. 

Q.  Y  es;  that  was  immediately  after  the  subcommittee  had  ad¬ 
journed,  was  it  not? — A.  Xo;  I  think  they  had  adjourned.  On  a 
Saturday - 

Q.  On  the  Saturday  before? — A.  Well,  yes;  a  week  or  ten  days 
previous. 

Q.  And  you  had  no  cognizance  of  the  fact  that  the  subcommittee 
were  in  session ;  that  they  had  convened ;  had  held  hearings,  and  that 
a  subpoena  had  been  issued  for  you? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Xone  whatever? — A.  I  understood  that  there  was  a  committee 
appointed  to  meet  at  some  time  or  other;  yes. 

Q.  When  did  you  leave  the  city  of  Chicago,  Mr.  Wilson? — A.  I 
left — some  time — a  few  days  after  the  primaries;  the  primaries  were 
held  on  the  loth.  I  think  the  primaries  were  held  on  the  15th. 

Q.  September  15 ;  is  that  it  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  year  1910? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  left  a  few  days  after  the  primaries? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Isn't  it  a  fact,  now,  Mr.  Wilson,  that  you  left  on  the  Saturday 
subsequent  to  the  holding  of  the  primaries  in  Cook  County,  Ill.? — A. 
The  Saturday  after  the  primaries? 

Q.  Y  es? — A.  Well,  it  was — I  dare  sav  that's  the  time. 

Q.  X  ow,  Mr.  Wilson,  isn't  it  a  fact  that  you  did  leave  the  city  of 
Chicago — that  you  did  not  leave  the  city  of  Chicago,  I  would  say — 
until  the  25th  day  of  September,  a  week  following  the  Saturday  after 
the  primaries? — A.  Xo.  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not? — A.  Xo,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  On  Saturday,  September  25  ? — A.  I  would  not  say  as  to  that. 

Q.  1910? — A.  I  would  not  say  as  to  that.  I  would  not  sav  I  left 
on  a  Saturday — on  the  Saturday  you  sav  that  I  left.  I  know  I  left 
a  short  time  after  the  primaries,  but  whether  it  was  on  the  Saturday 
after  the  primaries,  or  the  following  Saturday,  I  would  not  say. 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson,  you  were  not  living  at  your  home  on  Perrv  street, 
were  you,  before  you  left  the  city  of  Chicago  that  time? — A.  I  cer¬ 
tainly  was. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  719 

Q.  Now,  isn't  it  a  fact  that  the  committee — no,  I  will  withdraw 
that.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  the  day  you  left  Chicago  you  met  your 
brother-in-law  Quinlan  in  the  neighborhood  of  Irving  Park  Boule¬ 
vard  and  Perry  street,  and  that  he  handed  you  a  traveling  bag,  about 
3.45  in  the  afternoon? — A.  Xo,  sir;  what  was  the  question? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Miss  Lawler,  will  you  please  read  the  question. 

(Question  read  as  follows:) 

Isn’t  it  a  fact  that  the  day  you  left  Chicago  you  met  your  brother-in-law, 
Quinlan,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Irving  Park  Boulevard  and  Perry  street  and’ 
that  he  handed  you  a  traveling  bag  about  3.45  in  the  afternoon? 

The  Witness.  Xo,  sir;  it  is  not  so. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  Quinlan — your  brother-in-law,  Quinlan? — - 
A.  I  see  him — I  probably  saw  him ;  yes. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  on  the  Saturday,  September  25,  after  the 
primaries,  did  you? — A.  I  would  not  say  as  to  that;  I  would  not  be 
positive  as  to  that,  whether  I  did  or  not;  whether  that  was  the  right 
date  or  not. 

Q.  Xow,  Mr.  Wilson,  isn’t  it  a  fact  that  Mr.  Quinlan  came  out  of 
your  home — the  home  that  you  resided  in — and  isn’t  it  a  fact  that 
you  were  standing  on  the  corner  of  Perry  street  and  Irving  Park 
boulevard,  and  you  walked  east,  and  Quinlan  walked  to  Prairie  ave¬ 
nue  and  then  walked  west  and  he  crossed  the  street  and  put  your  bag 
down  on  the  sidewalk  and  you  picked  it  up  and  left;  isnVthat  the 
fact,  Mr.  Wilson? — A.  Xo,  sir;  it  is  not  a  fact. 

Q.  That  is  not  so,  is  it? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  And  he  (Quinlan)  didn’t  hand  you  a  ba £  on  that  day  at  all, 
did  he;  will  you  tell  this  committee  that  he  did  not?— A.  What’s 
that  question— why,  no,  he  did  not;  no,  sir. 

Q.  At  no  time? — A.  That  question  is  absolutely  no;  he  didn’t 
meet  me  at  Perry  street  and  give  me  a  bag ;  no. 

Q.  Where  did  he  meet  you  and  give  you  a  bag? — A.  He  did  not 
meet  me  and  give  me  a  bag  anywhere. 

Q.  At  no  time  on  Saturday.  September  2  5  ?— A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  W ho  did  give  you  a  hand  bag  on  that  day? — A.  Xo  one  did. 

Q.  The  day  you  left  you  went  to  your  house  and  got  your  bag  and 
eft,  yourself? — A.  Yes,  sir:  I  got  my  bag. 

Q.  And  carried  it  yourself  from  irving  Park  boulevard? _ A.  I 

,N  on  t  say  as  to  that ;  I  got  on  the  car — I  do  not  know  whether  I  omt 
>n  the  car  on  Irving  Park  boulevard  or  Ashland  avenue. 

Q.  You  were  alone? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  met  no  member  of  your  family  on  Irving  Park  boule¬ 
vard  on  that  day? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  answer— you  had  met  no  one? — A.  I  had  met  no 

>ne. 

,  Q*  Yes,  sir,  now,  Mi.  llson,  you  say  you  voted  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
or  the  first  time  on  May  26,  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anyone  speak  to  you  with  reference  to  voting  for  Mr. 

lorimer  prior  to  your  casting  your  vote  for  him  on  that  date? _ A.* 

Yell,  I  do  not  know;  several  spoke  to  me,  and  it  was  talked  around 
he  house. 

Q.  What  was  talked  around  the  house? — A.  Why,  voting  for  Mr. 
xirimer — about  voting  for  him. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  now,  Mr.  Wilson,  if  anyone  spoke  to  you 
>ersonally. — A.  Asked  me  on  that  dav? 


720  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  on  the  day  of  the  election. — A.  Well,  I  don’t  think 
they  did,  on  that  day.  I  can  not  say.  I  have  no  recollection  of 
anyone  asking  me. 

Q,  Did  anyone  ask  you  on  the  day  prior  to  the  25th  or  26th  day 
of  May,  or  talk  to  you  with  reference  to  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
for  United  States  Senator? — A.  I  could  not  say.  We  talked  to  one 
another.  I  can  not  say  to  whom  I  talked;  we  talked  to  one  another, 
and  probably  I  talked  to  somebody  about  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  about  whom  you  spoke  to.  Did  anyone  talk  to 
you ;  that  is  my  question  ? — A.  On  that  day  ? 

Q.  On  the  25th  day  of  May. — A.  I  can  not  say  as  to  that. 

Q.  On  the  24th? — A.  Somewhere  probably  within  three  or  four 
days  before  the  election  some  of  the  members  may  have. 

Q.  Did  Lee  O’Neil  Browne? — A.  He  may  have. 

Q.  Will  you  say  he  did  or  did  not? — A.  Well,  I  can  not  say; 
I  will  not  say  he  did  or  did  not. 

Q.  You  will  not  say  one  way  or  the  other? — A.  Well,  because  I 
felt  that  I  was  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  if  at  any  time  the 
occasion  should  arise  that  my  vote  would  help  to  elect  him  to  the 
Senate. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you,  Mr.  Wilson,  if  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  asked  you 
to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  or  discussed  with  you  the  subject  of  your 
voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  between  the  24th  and  the  26th  days  of 
May. — A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  In  1909? — A.  I  have  no  recollection. 

Q,  When  did  you  make  up  your  mind  for  the  first  time  to  vote 
for  Mr.  Lorimer? — A.  Well,  I  had  made  up  my  mind  if  the  Demo¬ 
crats  were  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  I  would  be  one  of  them, 
as  I  had  a  personal  reason  for  so  doing.  Do  you  wish  me  to  state  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  have  no  objection. 

The  Wit  ness.  When  I  was  in  the  sheriff’s  office,  the  late  sheriff, 
Thomas  E.  Barrett,  a  Democrat,  was  taken  sick.  He  was  quite  a 
friend  of  mine,  and  when  he  Avas  taken  sick  and  was  at  the  hospital 
I  went  to  the  hospital  to  see  him  and  was  there  constantly,  you  might 
say,  and  at  his  house,  until  he  died;  and  during  the  time  while  he 
was  sick  Mr.  Lorimer  came  to  see  him  with  a  gentleman  named 
McAndrews,  Jim  McAndrews,  and  after  Mr.  Lorimer  left — I  was 
introduced  to  him  while  he  was  there — and  after  he  had  left,  Mr. 
Barrett  said  to  me,  “  Now,  that’s  one  of  my  best  friends  in  Chicago, 
a  man  I  think  the  world  of;  and  any  time  that  you  have  any  chance, 
or  any  favor  that  you  can  bestow  on  Mr.  Lorimer,  I  wish  you  would 
do  it.”  That  man,  Mr.  Barrett,  was  as  close  to  me,  probably  closer  to 
me,  than  any  living  man  outside  of  my  family,  and  when  Mr.  Lori- 
mer’s  name  was  mentioned  as  a  candidate,  I  felt  as  soon  as  there 
would  be  any  number  of  Democrats  that  would  vote  for  him  I  would 
be  among  tlie  first — of  course,  I  felt  that  I  could  not  afford  to  be  the 
only  Democrat  to  vote  for  a  Republican  to  elect  him,  because  that 
would  be  suicide,  but  I  had  made  up  my  mind  that  when  I  heard 
of  any  number  of  Democrats  who  Avould  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  I 
was  one  of  the  first  to  say  I  would. 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson,  Thomas  Barrett,  of  whom  you  speak  as  being 
sheriff  of  Cook  County,  died  some  five  years  ago,  did  he  not?— A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  voted  for  Edward  Shurtleff  for  Senator? — A.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  72] 


Q.  And  Mr.  Shurtleff  is  a  Republican? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  are  a  Democrat? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Edward  Shurtleff  had  been  balloted  upon  ever  since  Janu¬ 
ary? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  felt  no  hesitancy  in  voting  for  him? — A.  I  knew  there  was 
no  chance — because  I  knew  there  was  no  chance  to  elect  him ;  he  had 
^  ^  t  lie^v^  were  complimentary — a  complimentary  vote. 

Q,.  Then  the  vote  you  cast  for  Edward  Shurtleff  was  a  compli¬ 
mentary  vote,  was  it  ? — A.  Exactly ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  when  did  you  make  up  your  mind  that  your  vote  with  the 
others  would  elect  a  Republican — that  it  would  elect  Mr.  Lorimer  to 
the  United  States  Senate  ? — A.  When  did  I  make  up  my  mind  ? 

Q.  T  es,  sir.  I  am  asking  for  the  time  when  you  made  up  vour 
mind  that  your  vote,  with  the  other  Democrats  wTith  whom  you  had 
conferred,  would  elect  Mr.  Lorimer  to  the  United  States  Senate.— A 
I  can  not  get  that  question  right. 

Q.  You  testified  before  this  subcommittee  just  a  moment  ago  that 
you  would  not  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  unless  your  vote  was  going  to 
elect  him ;  is  that  correct  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  TV  hen  did  you  make  up  your  mind  that  your  vote,  together  with 
the  vote  of  the  other  Democrats,  would  elect  Mr.  Lorimer  ?— A.  When 
I  circulated  among  the  Democrats  and  so  many  were  willing  to  vote 
for  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Q.  When  was  that,  Mr.  Wilson?— A.  Within  the  week  before  he 
was  elected;  I  could  not  say  exactly;  might  have  been  two  or  three 

da  vs  before. 

«/ 

Q.  Yes.  Now,  Mr.  Wilson,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  didn’t  Lee  O’Neill 
Browne  and  the  other  leaders  of  the  minority  faction  pass  the  word 
around  on  the  night  of  the  25th  of  May  or  the  morning  of  the  26th 
of  May  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  “  going-over?  ” — A.  I  dare  sav  they 
did — or  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  TV  ere  you  well  acquainted  with  the  southern  Illinois  members 
of  that. general  assembly?— A.  I  don’t  know— fairlv  well,  the  same 
is  some  of  the  northern  men. 

Q.  But  not  intimately? — A.  Some  I  was;  yes. 

Q-  Tell  this  subcommittee,  please,  what  southern  Illinois  members 
von  were  well  acquainted  with  at  that  time.— A.  Some  of  the  older 
nembers  I  met  at  previous  session. 

Q.  Who,  who  who?— A.  Clark  and  Link  and  Beckemeyer. 

Q.  Yes.  That’s  Joe  Clark  and  Mike  Link  and  H.  J.  C.  Becke- 
never? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  well  acquainted  with  them?— A.  Well,  I  do  not  want 
;o  say  I  was;  probably  better  acquainted  with  some  of  those  three 
nen  than  with  the  others.  '  I  was  perhaps  better  acquainted  with 
Hlark  than  with  the  other  two,  and  might  have  been  better  acquainted 
vith  Link  than  with  Beckemeyer,  which  I  was. 

Q.  You  knew  Link  best?— A.  No;  I  knew  Clark  best. 

Q.  How  well  were  you  acquainted  with  Shepard?— A.  Well.  T  met 
lim  in  the  last  session;  he  was  a  pretty  decent  fellow,  and  naturally 
hese  men  you  get  acquainted  with. 

Q.  So  you  knew  Shepard  as  you  knew  others  in  the  house? _ A. 

fes. 

70024°— S.  Rep.  042,  61-3 - 46 


722  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  You  knew  the  Chicago  members  better  than  the  southern  Illi¬ 
nois  members? — A.  Some  of  them;  yes. 

Q.  Yes;  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  you  knew  many  more  Chicago 
members  much  better  than  you  knew  any  southern  Illinois  members, 
including  Link? — A.  No;  1  did  not  say  so;  some  were  members  of 
the  other  end  of  it — to  be  plain,  what  was  called  the  “  Tippett  end,” 
and  then  there  was  the  “  Browne  end ;  ”  one  faction  v^as  the  “  Tippett 
end  ”  and  the  other  faction  was  the  “  Browne  end.”  The  Tippett  end 
I  did  not  associate  much  with ;  they  were  not  working  the  same  as  we 
were. 

Q.  There  were  39  members  of  the  Browne  faction,  were  there  not  ? — 
A.  37. 

Q.  There  were  39  and  they  dropped  to  37? — A.  There  were  2 
that — well,  the  other  2  never  virtually  belonged  to  us. 

Q.  Yes.  There  were  39  and  they  were  reduced  to  37,  is  that 
right? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Now,  of  the  37  or  39,  call  it  whatever  you  please,  a  large  part  of 
them — a  large  number  of  them — were  from  Chicago? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Most  of  the  Browne  faction  resided  in  Chicago,  and  those  resid¬ 
ing  in  Chicago  you  knew  better  than  those  residing  in  southern  Illi¬ 
nois  ;  you  were  better  acquainted  with  those  living  in  Chicago  ? — A.  I 
can  not  say  that  I  was. 

Q.  Well,  the  faction,  or  members  of  the  Lee  O'Neill  Browne  fac¬ 
tion,  that  resided  in  southern  Illinois — you  knew  them  well? — A. 
Well,  yes. 

Q,  You  didn’t  know  White  very  well? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  didn’t  know  Luke  very  well? — A.  I  knew  Luke  very  well, 
yes,  because  he  was  an  old  member. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  Shepard  very  well? — A.  Only  as  a  new 
member. 

Q.  You  went  to  St.  Louis  and  arrived  there  on  the  15th  of  July, 
1909,  did  you  not  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And"  registered  at  the  Southern  Hotel  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  when  you  so  registered  at  the  Southern  Hotel  in  St.  Louis 
you  took  a  room  there,  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  room  had  a  bath,  did  it  not — a  bathroom  connected 
with  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Wilson,  you  had  been  at  the  Briggs  House  in  Chi¬ 
cago  the  day  before  you  went  to  St.  Louis,  hadn’t  you? — A.  The  day 
before  I  went  away? 

Q.  The  day  before  you  went  to  St.  Louis. — A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t 
recollect  that  I  w  as. 

Q.  You  had  been  to  the  Briggs  House  in  the  city  of  Chicago  the 
day  before — the  day  you  left  for  St.  Louis? — A.  Do  you  mean  that 
I  left  the  Briggs  House  to  go  to  St.  Louis? 

Q.  You  had  been  at  the  Briggs  House  the  day  before  you  left  for 
St.  Louis? — A.  I  do  not  recall  that  I  was. 

Q.  If  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  testified  before  this  subcommittee  that 
you  wTere  at  the  Briggs  House  on  that  day,  and  saw  you  there,  do 
you  say  that  is  incorrect  or  correct? — A.  I  have  no  recollection  of 
it ;  I  do  not  recollect  the  date.  I  had  been  there  a  few  days  previous. 
If  it  was  Sunday  or  Saturday  I  vmuld  say  that  probably  that  is  abso¬ 
lutely  correct. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  723 

Q.  And  you  left  Chicago  on  the  night  of  the  14th  day  of  July  ?— A. 
Yes,  sir.  *  J 

Q.  And  arrived  in  St.  Louis  on  the  morning  of  July  15.  did  you?— 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  immediately  went  to  the  Southern  Hotel  and  registered? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Correct? — A.  Correct. 

Q.  And  you  left  St.  Louis  at  noon?— A.  To  return? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  Xoon. 

Q*  ^  ou  left  on  the  noon  train,  on  the  train  that  leaves  St.  Louis  at 
12  o'clock  noon? — A.  I  can  not  say  as  to  the  time.  I  know  it  was 
about  noon. 

Q.  About  noon? — A.  I  know  it  was  about  12  or  half  past,  I  do 
not  recollect  the  exact  time  that  the  tram  leaves.  I  do  not  know  now. 

Q.  Didn't  you  testify  before  the  grand  jury  that  you  left  St,  Louis 
at  12  o  clock  noon— the  grand  jury  in  Chicago?— A.  I  do  not  think 
that  I  named  any  specific  time,  because  I  did  not  know,  and  can  not 
say  now  that  it  was  just  noon.  I  do  not  think  that  I  could  remember 
what  time  the  train  left  exactly— I  could  not  remember;  I  do  not 
remember  that  now. 

Q.  Well,  you  will  say  it  was  about  noon.— A.  I  will  say  that  it 
was  some  place  between  11  and  1.  I  will  say  that. 

^  Q.  Xow,  then,  all  the  business  that  you  transacted  in  the  city  of 
St.  Louis  on  the  morning  of  July  14  you  transacted  from  the  time 
yon  arrived  there,  until  noon,  whether  it  was  between  11  and  1 
3’clock? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  did  you  meet  at  St.  Louis  on  the  morning  of  July  15?— 
4.  I  met  Beckemeyer,  Luke,  Shepard,  Link,  Clark,  and  White. 

Q.  Those  were  what  was  known  as  southern  Illinois  members? _ 

A  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you.  when  you  went  to  St.  Louis  expect  to  meet  these 
gentlemen  at  St.  Louis? — A.  I  did;  yes,  sir.  I  might  not  have  ex¬ 
ited  to  meet  all.  Some  I  can  not  recollect,  and  I  suppose  I  made 
some  arrangement  to  meet  them. 

Q.  What  arrangement  did  you  make  to  meet  them  there?— A. 
Well  either  sent  them  word  by ‘phone,  or  letter,  or  some  communica- 
ion — I  can  not  just  say  now. 

Q.  You  personally? — A.  Sir.* 

Q.  ^  ou  personally  ? — A.  I  can  not  say  personally. 

Q*  You  know  whether  or  not  you  sent  them  word  personally? — 
V.  Xo ;  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Xo  recollection  whether  you  sat  down  and  wrote  letters  to  those 
outhern  Illinois  members  to  meet  you  at  St.  Louis,  or  whether  you 
lid  not? — A.  Xo;  I  have  not. 

Q.  You  know  whether  or  not  you  telephoned  them?— A.  Per- 
onally. 

Q.  Yes;  personally ?— A.  I  have  no  recollection. 

Q.  Xo  recollection  on  the  subject,  whether  it  was  personal? _ A. 

.  _  ,  ve  in  some  way  communicated  with  them — 

•robably  sent  word  in  some  way — no  doubt  about  that. 

Q.  And  you  can  not  tell  this  committee  how  you  sent  it? _ A.  I 

urelv  have  no  recollection.  I  might  say  I  think,  but  that  would  be 
o  better. 


724  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Q.  What  is  your  recollection? — A.  I  think  I  sent  Clark  a  personal 
letter. 

Q,  What  other  “think”  have  you  on  the  subject? — A.  In  that 
letter  I  am  pretty  positive  that  I  told  him  to  let  Mr.  Link  know. 

Q.  That  is  your  best  recollection? — A.  \es,  sir. 

Q.  Your  best  recollection  about  Clark?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  did  you  communicate  with  Mr.  Shepard? — A.  I  don't 
know  as  I  really  communicated  with  Shepard. 

Q.  Did  you  expect  to  see  Shepard?— A.  No;  I  don’t  know  that 

I  did. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  that  you  did? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  testify  before  that  same  grand  jury  on  the  same 
occasion  that  you  did  expect  to  meet  Mr.  Shepard  in  St.  Louis?-  A. 
I  may  have  testified  that  I  expected  to  see  those  southern  Illinois 
men,  the  men  from  the  southern  part  of  the  State.  I  don’t  know  as 

I  specifically  picked  out  Shepard. 

Q.  How  did  you  communicate  with  White — Charles  A.  Y  lute  ?— 
A.  I  don’t  know— I  don’t  know  whether  he  said  I  sent  him  a  tele¬ 
gram.  Now,  I  haven't  any  recollection  about  it,  of  sending  him  a 
telegram — in  fact,  I  figured  that  that  telegram  had  been  used  and 
senf  with  my  name  signed  to  it — signed  by  my  name,  to  show  if 
possibly  couid,  my  writing,  which  could  not  be  as  it  was  not  the 
original  telegram  at  all,  and  I  figured  it  out  this  way,  that  that  tele¬ 
gram  was  a  fake. 

Q.  Yes,  yes ;  now  how  did  you  figure  that  you  notified  Y  lute  ? — A. 
White  said  he  met  Beckemeyer  on  the  street.  . 

Q.  Not  what  White  said;  how  did  you  notify  White,  if  you  did 
notify  him  ?— A.  It  might  be  possible  that  that  telegram  was  sent 
through  somebody  that  I  told  to  send  it. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  of  who  that  was? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  did  you  notify  Mr.  Luke?— A.  Well,  I  don’t  know;  the 

same  wav,  letter  or  some  way.  . 

Q.  Now,  isn’t  it  a  fact  that  you  notified  all  of  the  southern  Illinois 

members  through  Mike  Giblin,  Lee  O  Neill  Brownes  secretary?  A. 

No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  notify  any  of  them  through  Mike  Giblin?— A.  I  will 
not  sav  I  did  not. 

Q.  Well,  you  didn’t  notifv  any  of  them?— A.  I  won’t  say  I  did  not, 
Q.  Didn’t  you  notifv  each  one  of  them  by  telegram  through  Mike 
Giblin,  and  ask  for  a  reply  or  response  at  the  Briggs  House?— A.  It 
might  be  possible  I  got  Mike  Giblin  to  send  this  telegram;  1  am 
not  sure. 

Q.  You  are  not  sure? — A.  No,  sir.  . 

Q.  You  testified  on  this  same  subject  before  the  grand  jury  ot 

Cook  County?— A.  Yes,  sir.  .  „  ,  T  ,  „ 

Q.  And  vou  were  asked  the  same  question  ? — A.  I  don  t  recall. 

Q.  Were  you  not  asked,  Mr.  Wilson,  whether  you  notified  the 

southern  Illinois  members? — A.  I  have  no  doubt,  ■ 

Q.  And  didn’t  you  state  on  that  occasion  that  you  notified  them 
through  Mike  Giblin,  Lee  O’Neill  Browne’s  secretary  ?— A.  I  don't 
know  that  I  made  that  as  plain  as  that  because  I  could  not  say  that 
I  did.  They  asked  me  if  I  did  notify  those  men,  and  I  probably  baici 
I  did  through  Giblin,  Browne’s  secretary. 

Q.  Through  Browne’s  secretary? — A.  Yes. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  725 

Q.  When  did  von  ask  Giblin  to  notify  the  southern  Illinois  mem- 

iers  to  meet  you  at  St.  Louis? — A.  When  did  I  ask  him? 

«/ 

Q.  Yes? — A.  Probably  some  time  before  I  left. 

Q.  On  the  14th;  you  left  Chicago  on  the  14th? — A.  Well.  I  pre¬ 
sume  so,  if  that  is  the  date. 

Q.  Wasn’t  Browne  at  the  Briggs  House  on  the  14th  day  of  July?— 
Y  He  may  have  been. 

Q.  Was  Browne  sick? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Wasn’t  Browne  recovering  from  an  attack  of  ptomaine  poison- 
ng? — A.  He  may  have  been  recovering;  he  was  sick  two  or  three 

lays. 

Q.  He  was  not  sick? — A.  He  was  sick  two  or  three  days  before 
hat ;  but  he  was  recovering,  so  that  he  was  around. 

Q.  He  recovered  before  you  went  to  St.  Louis? — A.  I  did  not  say 
he  day  before  I  went  to  St.  Louis  I  saw  him. 

Q.  Will  you  say  you  didn’t  see  him? — A.  Xo;  to  the  best  of  my 
'ecollection  I  may  have  seen  him  on  the  Saturday  or  Sunday  before 
hat.  He  had  that  room  and  would  come  and  go. 

Judge  Haxecy.  I  have  no  objection  specially,  but  it  seems  to  me 
hat  it  does  not  go  to  any  question  pending  before  this  committee, 
ind  it  may  be  the  purpose  of  counsel  on  the  other  side,  or  some  one 
)ack  of  him,  to  get  something  here  that  may  be  used  against  this  wit¬ 
less  in  Cook  County.  He  has  been  asked  a  number  of  questions  about 
vhat  he  testified  to  before  the  grand  jury,  and  counsel  has  referred 
o  a  memorandum  book,  and  he  seems  to  be  quite  familiar  with  what 
ook  place  before  the  grand  jury  in  Chicago.  We  haven't  access  to 
hat  information,  and  probably  nobody  but  the  State’s  attorney  and 
he  gentleman  on  the  other  side  has,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  this 
ommittee  should  not  permit  counsel  to  use  this  committee  to  get  evi- 
lence  to  be  used  against  this  witness,  who  has  three  indictments 
igainst  him  in  Cook  County,  and  two  of  the  indictments  have  been 
tbandoned  by  the  State’s  attorney  without  asking  this  defendant  to 
dead  or  put  him  on  trial.  The  first  one  was  found,  and  that  was 
lismissed  by  the  State’s  attorney - 

Senator  Gamble.  What  was  the  charge  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Perjury. 

Judge  Hanecy.  The  very  thing  they  are  asking  him  about. 

Senator  Gamble.  What  was  the  other  charge? 

Mr.  Austrian.  One  was  a  curative  indictment  of  the  other. 

Senator  Gamble.  There  is  an  indictment  against  him  now,  what 
s  the  charge? 

Judge  Hanecy.  Perjury. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Perjury. 

Judge  Hanecy.  And  all  growing  out  of  the  same  testimony.  He 
lever  appeared  before  the  grand  jury  but  once,  and  he  was  indicted 
or  perjury  because  he  didn't  tell  the  story  the  state’s  attorney  wanted 
iim  to.  The  state’s  attorney  dismissed  that  indictment  without  put- 
ing  him  on  trial  or  calling  him  to  plead. 

Then  the  state’s  attorney  found  another  indictment  against  him, 
without  this  witness  going  before  the  grand  jury  a  second  time;  that 
ndictment  was  for  the  same  charge  and  growing  out  of  the  same  tes- 
imony  that  the  first  one  was.  That  continued  for  several  months, 
nd  then  was  dismissed  by  the  state's  attorney  of  his  own  motion 
nd  without  putting  the  witness  on  trial  or  even  arraigning  him  to 


726  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

plead.  Three  months  or  more  afterwards  they  found  a  third  indict¬ 
ment  on  the  same  matter.  They  are  trying  to  get  testimony  here, 
not  on  the  question  that  this  honorable  committee  is  investigating,  but 
upon  collateral  matters  entirely.  I  take  it  that  this  committee  wanted 
this  witness  to  come  here  and  say  whether  or  not  he  paid  certain  men 
certain  amounts  of  money  for  voting  for  Senator  Lorimer  or  for  a 
jack  pot  or  some  other  proposition,  but  that  is  not  what  this  counsel  is 
asking  him  at  all.  This  witness  should  not  be  compelled  to  answer 
questions  that  may  be  used  against  him  in  a  criminal  prosecution,  in 
a  prosecution  that  seems  to  be  a  persecution  and  malicious  in  its 
nature. 

For  that  reason  I  suggest  to  this  committee — not  in  the  way  of  an 
objection,  because  I  do  not  care,  but,  it  seems  to  me,  out  of  common 
fairness  to  this  witness,  who  is  here  without  counsel — that  he  should 
not  be  subjected  to  this  kind  of  an  examination  for  the  purpose  ol 
using  what  he  may  say  in  a  criminal  prosecution. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  submit  that  this  statement  is  absolutely  ridicu¬ 
lous.  The  federal  statutes  regulate  the  use  of  testimony  given  by 
this  witness.  Testimony  given  by  this  witness  can  not  "be  used  in 
any  criminal  prosecution.  It  is  not  giving  the  name  of  a  witness;  it 
is  not  tracing  the  movements  of  this  man  so  it  can  be  used  against 
him.  This  is  very  pertinent  evidence,  if  the  committee  pleases,  and  I 
ask  to  be  allowed  to  pursue  this  line  of  examination  as  preliminary  to 
the  main  question,  which  will  come  in  a  very  few  minutes. 

Judge  Hanecy.  I  am  entirely  familiar  with  the  law,  which  does 
not  permit  the  state's  attorney,  or  anyone  under  the  domination  of 
people  back  of  counsel  on  the  other  side,  to  use  this  testimony,  but  I 
know  that  this  information  he  is  seeking  can  be  used  in  connection 
with  other  matters.  “  The  very  fact  that  he  is  compelled  to  answer 
one  question,"  as  Chief  Justice  Marshall  says,  u  may  be  the  connect¬ 
ing  link  that  makes  the  chain  complete,  and  without  which  the  rest 
would  be  worthless." 

Senator  Burrows  (chairman).  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Austrian, 
but  please  make  your  examination  as  brief  as  you  can.  We  must  get 
along  with  this. 

Mr.  Austrian  (resuming  examination)  : 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson,  I  will  ask  you  to  give  this  subcommittee  }Tour  best 
recollection  as  to  whether  or  not  prior  to  your  leaving  Chicago  for 
St.  Louis  on  the  night  of  July  14,  1909,  you  saw  Lee  O’Neill 
Browne  ? — A.  On  that  day. 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  I  could  not  say  I 
did. 

Q.  Could  }7ou  say  you  did  not? — A.  I  really  do  not  think  I  saw 
him  on  that  day.  I  think  I  saw  him  a  few  days  previous. 

Q.  Did  you  discuss  with  him  your  trip  to  St.  Louis — anything 
with  reference  to  your  trip  to  St.  Louis? — A.  I  dare  say  I  did. 

Q.  Did  Lee  O'Neill  Browne  know  you  were  going  to  St.  Louis? — 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Sir? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  up  your  mind  to  go  to  St.  Louis? — A. 
Well,  somewhere  about  the  day — I  do  not  just  know  when,  but  some¬ 
time  earlier  in  the  month;  I  could  not  say  exactly  what  day  I  was 
going. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  727 

Q.  How  much  earlier  in  the  month  ? — A.  About  five  or  six  days. 

Q.  On  or  about  the  10th  of  July? — A.  Somewhere  around  there. 

Q.  That  is  when  you  made  up  your  mind  to  go  to  St.  Louis. 
Did  you  make  it  up  after  discussing  the  subject  with  Lee  O'Neill 
Browne? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  on  what  is  known  as  the  “  submerged  lands  commit¬ 
tee  ”  of  the  Illinois  house,  were  you  not  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  the  submerged  lands  committee,  or  a  subcommittee  of  that 
committee,  meet  in  St.  Louis  in  July,  1909? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  it? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  During  the  entire  month  of  July  did  it  meet  there? — A.  No, 

sir. 

Q.  Did  it  meet  there  in  the  month  of  August? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When? — A.  About  the  23d  or  24th,  somewhere  along  there. 

Q.  Of  August  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  1909? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  arrived  in  St.  Louis  on  the  morning  of  the  15th  of 
July,  did  you  have  or  conduct  or  carry  on  any  business  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  submerged  lands  committee? — A.  I  did  not  go  for  that 
purpose. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Wilson,  you  went  down  there  for  what  purpose? — A. 
I  went  down  to  see  some  of  the  southern  members  of  the  Illinois 
house  with  regard  to  a  banquet  to  be  given  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne. 

Q.  And  you  went  down  because  Tippett  had  given  his  followers 
a  banquet ;  Tippett  had  given  his  followers  a  banquet,  had  he  not  ? — - 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  Tippett  had  given  his  followers  a  banquet  prior  to  the 
adjournment  of  the  session  in  Springfield,  the  adjournment  having 
taken  place  the  4th  of  June? — A.  I  don't  know  the  date. 

Q.  If  the  legislature  adjourned  on  the  4th  of  June,  that  is  correct, 
is  it  not  ? — A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Yes.  sir;  and  fio  steps  were  taken  with  reference  to  Mr. 
Browne’s  banquet  until  about  the  middle  of  July? — A.  Well,  it  had 
been  spoken  of;  that  night  of  adjournment  when  we  came  over  from 
the  house  to  the  hotel  in  Springfield  it  was  talked  of. 

Q.  No  further  steps  had  been  taken  toward  ascertaining  the  minds 
of  the  southern  Illinois  members  on  that  subject  until  the  15th  day  of 
July? — A.  There  was  talk  about  it. 

Q.  Beyond  talking  about  it,  nothing  definite  was  done  until  July 
15,  had  there? — A.  Nothing. 

Q.  You  never  talked  to  anybody  yourself  about  it  until  the  15th 
of  July,  did  you,  Mr.  Wilson? — xY.  Oh,  yes. 

Q.  With  whom  ? — xY.  Doctor  xYllison. 

Q.  Anyone  else? — A.  Murray. 

Q.  Murray  you  talked  to  in  Chicago? — xY.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  to  anyone  else  ? — A.  No. 

Q.  And  "you  were  a  Chicago  member  and  there  were  a  number  of 
Chicago  members  in  the  house  belonging  to  the  Browne  faction, 
and  you  never  discussed  the  banquet?  You  never  discussed  it  with 
anyone  save  Mr.  Murray  and  Doctor  xYllison? — A.  Anyone? 

Q.  Yes;  with  anyone. — A.  Yes,  sir;  at  the  house  there  were 
several  of  us. 

Q.  Then  you  did  discuss  the  subject  with  more  members  besides 
Murray  and  Allison? — xY.  Yes,  sir. 


728  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  How  many  more  ? — A.  I  could  not  say,  but  when  we  came 
back  to  the  hotel  it  was  common  talk  that  Mr.  Tippett  got  one  the 
best  of  us  by  giving  that  banquet. 

Q.  You  condoled  with  each  other  on  account  of  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  then  and  there  immediately  had  a  discussion  about  ar¬ 
ranging  for  a  banquet  for  Browne?  Is  that  correct? — A.  The  ar¬ 
rangement  was  not  spoken  of  at  that  time;  no.  But  some  members 
thought  wre  should  do  it. 

Q.  Then  you  did  nothing  about  it  from  the  time  of  the  adjourn¬ 
ment  of  the  legislature  until  July  15,  1909?  Is  that  correct? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  knew  when  you  went  to  St.  Louis  on  the  night  of 
July  14,  what  Browne’s  attitude  was  with  reference  to  a  banquet  for 
himself? — A.  I  did,  in  a  way. 

Q.  And  Browne  had  expressed  what  his  views  on  that  subject  were 
a  great  many  times,  Mr.  Wilson? — A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Well,  whenever  you  talked  about  it  he  expressed  his  views? — 
A.  He  said - 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  what  he  said.  He  expressed  his  views  and 
frowned  upon  it.  He  said  he  frowned  upon  the  banquet  because  it 
would  make  the  factions  separate  further  than  they  were  already 
separated.  Is  that  correct? — A.  I  don’t  know  as  he  went  into  it  so 
strong ;  before  I  went  over  to  see  Mr.  Clark - 

Q.  He  did  frown  upon  it? — A.  He  said  he  had  some  personal 
reason. 

Q.  When  you  came  back  from  St.  Louis  did  you  report  to  Browne 
or  Allison  on  the  subject  of  the  banquet? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Which  one? — A.  I  reported  to  Browne - 

Q.  To  which  one  did  you  report,  Browne  or  Allison? 

Judge  Hanecy.  He  said  Browne.  I  submit  he  ought  to  be  per¬ 
mitted  to  answer. 

Q.  I  am  asking  him  to  which  one  he  reported. — A.  I  reported  to 
Browne. 

Q.  Did  you  report  to  Allison? — A.  I  think  I  did;  yes. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  this  subcommittee  you  did? — A.  I  think  I  had 
Allison  on  the  phone  afterwards  and  told  him  that  the  boys — I  don't 
think — I  don’t  know  whether  it  was  on  the  phone  or  whether  he 
came  to  Chicago,  whether  I  saw  him  in  Chicago;  I  told  him  that 
Browne  was  opposed  to  the  banquet ;  and  it  seems  as  though  I  spoke 
to  him  and  told  him  that  Browne  was  opposed  to  the  banquet  and 
that  some  of  the  boys  agreed  that  it  would  not  be  the  best  thing  to 
have  it. 

Q.  The  boys  you  met  in  St.  Louis  were  willing  to  do  what  Browne 
wanted  them  to  do? — A.  They  left  that  to  me,  as  far  as  the  banquet 
was  concerned. 

Q.  You  knew  Browne’s  view  before  you  went  there? — A.  In  a  way 
I  did. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  where  Dr.  Allison  lived  when  you  testified 
before  the  grand  jury? — A.  I  don’t  know  where  he  lives  now. 

Q.  You  called  him  on  the  telephone,  you  said. — A.  I  called  him  on 
the  telephone  without  knowing  where  lie  lived;  anyone  can  get  any 
one  on  the  telephone  in  any  town. 

Q.  You  don't  know  the  town  in  which  he  lives  now? — A.  Oh,  yes; 
I  do;  I  never  said  I  did  not  know  in  what  town  he  lived — Essex - - 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  729 

Q.  When  did  you  ascertain  it? 

Senator  Burrows.  Is  that  material? 

The  Witness.  I  never  said  I  did  not  know  the  town - 

The  Chairman.  Wait  a  moment,  Mr.  Wilson ;  the  committee  can 
not  have  so  much  time  taken  up  by  what  seems  to  be  unnecessary. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Very  well,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson.  Allison  was  the  man  who  asked  you  to  go  to  St. 
Louis? — A.  He  did  not  ask  me  to  go. 

Q.  Who  did  ask  you  to  go? — A.  I  took  it  upon  myself. 

Q.  Xo  one  requested  you  to  go? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  You  went  on  your  own  initiative  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out 
whether  the  banquet  should  be  given  to  Browne,  six  weeks  after  the 
close  of  the  session,  is  that  right? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  St.  Louis  and  met  the  members  whose  names 
you  have  mentioned  here,  did  you  have  any  discussion  with  them  on 
the  subject  of  the  banquet? — A.  I  did,  yes. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  committee  what,  if  any,  talk  you  had  with  any 
one  member  of  the  southern  Illinois  members? — A.  What  I  said? 

Q.  Yes. — A.  Xo.  sir;  I  can  not  tell  you  the  conversation. 

Q.  Mr.  Wilson,  Link,  you  say,  you  knew  better  than  any  other  of 
the  Illinois  members? — A.  I  said  I  knew  Clark  the  best;  I  knew 
Link  pretty  well. 

Q.  Clark  and  Link  were  in  the  room  at  the  Southern  Hotel  with 
you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  Shepard,  and  White,  and  Luke,  and  Beckemeyer  were 
also  there,  is  that  right? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  pay  Mr.  White  any  money  on  that  day? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  pay  Mr.  Beckemeyer  any  money  on  that  day? — A. 
No.  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  pay  Mr.  Link  any  money  on  that  day? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  call  Mr.  "White  into  the  bathroom;  a  part  of  your 
iving  rooms  there  at  that  time? — A.  Did  I? 

Q.  Yes.  sir. — A.  Xo.  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  go  into  the  bathroom  with  you? — A.  I  do  not  think  he 
did.  I  do  not  recollect  him  being  in  the  bathroom. 

Q.  Will  you  say  he  did  not  go  into  the  bathroom  with  you? — A. 
I  say  I  don’t  remember  his  being  in  the  bathroom  with  me. 

Q.  Then,  if  "White  testified,  Mr.  Wilson,  that  “  he,”  referring  to 
you,  “invited  me  into  the  bathroom,”  that  was  incorrect,  was  it? — 
A.  Well,  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  called  him  into  the  bathroom. 

Q.  Llave  no  recollection  on  the  subject? — A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  call  Shepard  into  the  bathroom? — A.  I  won’t  say  I 
did  not,  but  I  have  not  any  recollection  that  I  called  him  in ;  he  may 
have  come  in  there  when  I  was  there. 

Q.  Have  no  recollection  whether  you  called  Shepard  in  or  not? — 
A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  read  Shepard’s  testimony? — A.  No. 

Q.  Has  any  one  stated  to  you  what  that  testimony  was? — A.  No, 

sir. 

Q.  And  you  don't  know  what  it  was  or  is? — A.  No,  sir.  My  eyes 
have  been  bad - 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  if  you  know  what  his  testimony  was? — A.  No, 

sir. 


730  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Q.  Now,  if  Shepard  testified  that  you  called  him  into  the  bath¬ 
room  on  that  occasion,  this  morning  of  July  15,  you  won’t  say 
whether  or  not  his  testimony  is  correct? — A.  I’ll  say  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  You  think  you  did? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  ^  ou  had  seen  Shepard  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  in  Spring- 
field? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  seen  him  in  that  hotel  dining  with  a  lady? — A.  I  don’t 
know  that  I  had.  I  had  heard  she  was  there. 

Q.  You  had  heard  that  he  was  there  dining  with  some  lady? — A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  called  him  into  the  bathroom? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  you  discussing  with  Shepard  when  you  called  him 
into  the  bathroom? — A.  I  don't  know  what  it  was;  it  was  not  any¬ 
thing  material. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  what  it  was? — A.  No;  I  have  not. 

Q.  Well,  will  you  tell  this  committee  you  have  a  recollection  of 
calling  him  into  the  bathroom  ? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  have  no  recollection  what  the  discussion  was? — A.  You 
asked  me  when  he — what  he  said  before  this  committee  or  before  the 
grand  jury - 

Q.  Yes,  sir. — A.  I  heard  what  he  said  before  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  I  am  asking  whether  you  knew  what  he  testified  to  before  this 
committee? — A.  I  said  “  No.” 

Q.  He  testified  before  the  grand  jury  to  the  same. — A.  I  can  not 
say ;  I  haven’t  heard  it. 

Q.  I  am  asking  you  now  if  you  know  what  you  said  in  the  bath¬ 
room.  I  am  not  asking  now  about  Shepard’s  testimony;  I  am  ask¬ 
ing  whether  you  know  what  discussion  you  had  on  that  occasion  ? — A. 
The  only  way  I  can  get  at  it  is  the  telegram ;  I  can  not  say  as  to  his 
testimony  before  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  about  the  testimony  before  the  grand  jury, 
but  White  said  certain  things - A.  He  said  that  Browne - 

Q.  You  do  not  know  what  you  said  to  him  in  the  bathroom  at 
all? — A.  No;  I  do  not. 

(Thereupon,  at  1*2  o'clock  noon,  the  subcommittee  took  a  recess  until 
2  o’clock  p.  m.) 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Wednesday,  December  7,  1910. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  committee  reassembled. 

Mr.  Robert  E.  Wilson  resumed  the  witness  stand  and  testified 
further  as  follows : 

Mr.  Austrian.  At  the  time  of  the  adjournment,  Mr.  Wilson,  I  was 
inquiring  as  to  your  recollection  of  your  conversation  with  Henry  A. 
Shepard  in  the  bathroom  adjoining  your  room  at  the  Southern  Hotel. 
Have  you  any  recollection  as  to  that  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  have  none  whatever. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  have  a  conversation  with  him  in  the  bath¬ 
room  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  The  chances  are  I  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  was  in  there? 

Mr.  M  Tlson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Do  you  have  an  independent  recollection  of  that 
fact  ?  1 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  731 

Mr.  W  ilson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  He  has  stated  that  he  was  in  the  bathroom. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  you  had  any  discus- 

don  with  him  with  reference  to  his  having  been  at  a  meal  at  the 

3t.  Nicholas  Hotel  with  a  ladv? 

«/  # 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  haven't  any  recollection,  although  that  is  what  he 
said  I  said  to  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  How  do  you  know  that  is  what  he  said  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Because  he  said  that  before  the  grand  jury. 

Mr.  Austrian.  How  do  you  know  what  he  testified  to  before  the 
^rand  jury? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Because  it  was  the  common  talk.  Evervbodv  heard 
vhat  he  said.  The  papers,  I  guess,  even  came  out  with  it  afterwards. 

Mr.  Austrian.  But  you  have  no  knowledge  of  what  he  testified  to 
before  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  When  you  were  before  the  grand  jury  you  were 
isked  with  reference  to  that  same  subject  matter,  wTere  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  not  testify  with  reference  to  the  conversa¬ 
tion  you  had  with  Shepard  in  the  bathroom  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  testified  that  it  was  something;  that  whatever  he 
;aid  or  I  said  was  so  immaterial  that  I  can  not  recall  it  again. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  was  your  testimony  before  the  grand  jury, 
vas  it  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  will  not  say  that  is  absolutely  my  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  It  seems  to  me  that  I  should  inquire  of  you 
whether  that  is  proper,  to  ask  the  witness  to  disclose  what  he  testified 
Defore  the  grand  jury. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  took  the  position,  it  was  not  proper,  Mr.  Chair- 
nan,  but  the  committee  ruled  it  was  proper  upon  the  hearing  in 
Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  I  have  no  recollection  of  that  at  all. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  It  was  the  ruling,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  state, 
:hat  the  witness  himself  might  testify.  This'  witness  is  in  a  different 
position  from  any  other  witness.  I  attempted  to  show  by  somebody 
ivho  was  not  indicted.  This  man  was  indicted  for  what  he  said  before 
»;he  grand  jury. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  really  does  not  make  any  difference  whether  the 
nan  who  is  testifying  is  indicted  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  not  spend  any  time  on  that.  Let  the  wit¬ 
less  answer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  not  testify  with  reference  to  a  conversa¬ 
tion  you  had  with  Shephard  in  the  bathroom? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Did  I  testify? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  W ilson.  I  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  not  testify  that  conversation  you  had 
ivith  Shephard  in  the  bathroom  was  with  reference  to  a  proposed 
lanquet  for  Lee  O’Neil  Browne? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  think  I  testified  that  was  the  subject  in  the 
lathroom,  because  that  was  the  subject  there  at  that  meeting. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  not  say  that  the  talk  you  had  with  Shep- 
lard  in  the  bathroom  concerned  the  banquet? 


732  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  might  have ;  I  won’t  say  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  not  say  you  had  not  seen  Shephard  with 
a  woman  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  and  had  no  discussion  with  him 
with  reference  to  being  with  a  woman  or  dining  with  a  woman  al 
the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  may  have. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Wilson,  when  you  went  down  to  St.  Louis, 
is  it  not  a  fact  that  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  had  intended  to  go? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  know  what  his  intentions  were.  He  may 
have  intended  to  go. 

Mr.  Austrian.  When  you  got  down  to  St.  Louis,  did  you  not  tell 
the  southern  Illinois  members  that  the  reason  you  came  was  because 
Browne  was  sick  and  could  not  go? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Are  you  sure  of  that? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  made  no  reference,  did  you,  to  the  fact  that 
Browne  had  been  unable  to  go  because  he  was  sick? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  may  have  mentioned  he  had  been  sick. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  understood  you  to  say  you  did  not  hand  Link  a 
package  on  that  15th  day  of  July,  1909? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  Link  testified  you  did,  Link  testified  to  a  false¬ 
hood,  did  he? 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think,  Mr.  Austrian,  that  is  exactly 
proper?  He  says  he  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  think  it  very  proper.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  want  to  show  by  this  witness  that  the  other 
witness  falsified? 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  he  testified  to  that  fact,  that  he  committed  a 
perjury. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  That  is  asking  him  to  give  an  opinion  that  the  other 
man  swore  to  a  lie  or  committed  perjury.  I  submit  it  is  not  proper. 

The  Chairman.  Is  not  that  a  question  for  the  committee?  The 
other  man  testified  to  certain  things,  if  you  please,  and  this  man  testi¬ 
fies  they  did  not  occur. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  will  withdraw  the  question. 

Senator  Gamble.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  is  proper  at  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  me  put  it  this  way :  If  Mr.  Link  testified  that 
in  the  Southern  Hotel  on  the  morning  of  the  15th  day  of  July,  1909, 
you  handed  him  a  package  containing  $900,  was  that  statement  cor¬ 
rect  or  incorrect  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  might  use  that  as  Mr.  Wayman  did — and  be  chari¬ 
table  to  him. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  ask  you  whether  that  was  correct  or  incorrect  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  can  only  answer  in  one  way,  and  that  is  that  if  I 
went  through  what  Link  went  through  probably  I  would  have  said  a 
thousand  or  any  other  sum. 

Mr.  Austrian.  \ou  would?  l.ou  got  the  third  degree,  too,  did 
you? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Not  quite;  no.  I  was  there - 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  asking  whether  or  not  that  statement  was  cor¬ 
rect  or  incorrect? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  say  I  can  not  answer  yes  or  no. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  733 

Senator  Heybttrn.  I  would  like  the  witness  to  finish  the  answer  to 
that  question.  You  were  interrupted  in  your  answer,  I  thought.  I 
would  like  to  hear  that  answer.  You  said  you  were  there? 

Mr.  Wilson.  At  the  grand  jury? 

Senator  Heyburn.  No:  at  the  third  degree.. 

Mr.  'Wilson.  I  was  not  there  when  he  got  the  full.  I  was  there 
when  part  of  it  was  going  on.  I  saw  him  sitting  on  a  bench  in  an 
anteroom,  while  the  grand  jury  was  in  the  other  room,  and  this  was 
the  anteroom,  and  Shephard  was  on  a  bench  on  one  end  and  Link 
on  the  other,  and  Beckemeyer  in  another  room,  standing  in  the  en¬ 
trance  of  another  room,  and  I  stepped  up  to  shake  hands  with  Link, 
when  an  officer  of  Mr.  Wyman’s,  I  presume,  stopped  me  and  said, 
“  You  can’t  talk  to  this  gentleman  here.”  I  said,  “  I  haven’t  said 
anything  out  of  the  way;  I  was  just  going  to  shake  hands.”  He  said, 
“  You  just  sit  down  here  and  don’t  pay  any  attention  to  this  man.” 
At  that  time  I  went  back  to  Mr.  Meyer,  supposed  to  be  the  attorney 
for  Mr.  Shephard,  and  told  him.  I  said;  “  There  is  Link  and  Shep¬ 
hard  sitting  on  a  bench  over  there  and,”  I  said,  “Link’s  eyes  are 
sticking  out  of  his  head,  and  Shephard  is  just  twisted  up  like  a  jack¬ 
knife.”  It  was  through  me  telling  him  that  they  finally  got  Shep¬ 
hard  the  next  afternoon. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all  the  third  degree  you  know  about,  is  it? 

Mr.  Wilson.  That  was  enough,  wasn’t  it? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Two  men  sitting  on  a  bench;  that  was  the  third 
degree?  • 

Mr.  Wilson.  That  was  part  of  it;  yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Do  you  know  anything  more  about  any  third  de¬ 
gree,  of  your  own  knowledge? 

Mr.  Wilson.  How  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Do  you  know  anything  more  about  any  third  de¬ 
gree  of  your  own  knowledge? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No;  only  what  these  men  said. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Let  us  see  what  experience  you  have  had.  You 
were  called  before  the  grand  jury,  were  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  testified? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  After  you  testified  you  waited  a  few  minutes  and 
then  left  the  building,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  was  all  the  third  degree  you  had,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  White  testified  that  in  that  room  on  that  oc¬ 
casion  on  the  same  day  you  handed  him  a  package  containing  $900, 
was  that  statement  correct  or  incorrect? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Coming  from  White,  I  do  not  know  what  you  might 

expect. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  know  whether  the  statement  is  correct  or 

incorrect. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  know  it  is  not  correct.  I  did  not  give  him  any 
money;  of  course,  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  Beckemever  testified  that  on  that  same  occasion 

*/ 

you  handed  him  $900  in  a  package,  was  that  statement  correct  or 
incorrect  ? 


734  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Wilson.  It  is  incorrect,  but  on  the  same  order  as  Link’s. 

Mr,  Austrian.  Clark  was  there,  too,  was  he  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  met  Clark  while  this  matter  was  being  inves¬ 
tigated  at  Springfield,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  By  accident. 

Mr.  Austrian.  About  the  28th  of  April,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No;  I  do  not  think  so;  I  think  it  was  earlier  than 
that.  It  was  in  that  week. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  was  in  that  week? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes. 

•  Austrian.  And  Beckemeyer,  who  was  in  that  room,  vou  also 
met  at  Springfield  ?  5  J 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  On  the  same  day? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  At  the  same  time? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir;  not  at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Was  it  not  the  same  day? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  M  as  it  not  just  as  Clark  was  leaving  that  Becke¬ 
meyer  came  in  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Within  what  period  of  time  was  it? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  was  sitting  at  the  breakfast  table,  and  Clark  hap¬ 
pened  to  be  sitting  at  the  next  table.  He  turned  around  and  saw  me 
and  said  something  to  me,  and  said,  “  I  thought  I  knew  that  voice,” 
and  he  stepped  over  and  I  shook  hands  with  him.  Then  later  on  in 
the  day  I  met  Beckemeyer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  know  Beckemeyer  was  going  to  be  there* 
Mr.  Wilson.  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian,  h  ou  were  surprised  when  you  saw  him,  were  vou* 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir.  J 

Mu  Austrian.  Did  Beckemeyer  and  you  have  any  discussion  with 
reference  to  the  incidents  of  July  15,  1909,  which  occurred  in  St. 
Louis  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No;  not  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Austrian.  In  any  way? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Aes.  He  said  that  some  men  named  Tierney  and 
White  were  down  to  his  town  to  see  him,  and  Wliite  accused  him  of 
receiving  money  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer.  I  said  to  him,  “  Did 
3011  get  any  money?  ”  He  said,  “  No,  I  did  not  get  any  money,  and 
anybody  that  says  so  is  a  G - d - liar.” 

Mr.  Austrian,  h  ou  know  whether  he  got  any  monev  or  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  How  do  I  know? 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  was  supposed  to  have  said  you  gave  it  to  him. 

Mr.  Wilson.  He  didn’t  get  any  money  from*  me,  and  that  is  the 
answer  he  gave  me. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  and  Beckemeyer  discuss  anything  with 
reference  to  a  meeting  in  St.  Louis  having  been  had  on  the  banquet 
proposition  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  On  that  day? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  735 


Mr.  Austrian.  Nothing  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  and  Beckemeyer  discuss  the  subject  of 
writing  letters  with  reference  to  the  banquet? 

Mr.  Wn  jSon.  No.  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Nothing  at  all? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  write  any  letters  to  Link  and  Beckemeyer 
vith  reference  to  a  banquet  for  Lee  O’Neill  Browne? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  may  have. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Were  they  dated  the  26th  of  June,  1909  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  could  not  state  as  to  that  unless  I  saw  the  letters. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Were  those  letters  written  in  1906? 

Mr.  Wilson.  They  were,  if  they  were  so  dated. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  and  Beckemeyer  had  no  discussion  on  the 
lubject  at  all? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No.  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  Mr.  Beckemeyer  testified  that  you  and  he  upon 
hat  occasion  discussed  the  meeting  of  July  15,  1909,  and  that  the 
;ubject  was  this  alleged  banquet  for  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  and  that  he 
alked  with  you  and  you  talked  with  him  about  writing  a  letter  and 
;ending  it  to  the  southern  Illinois  members,  fixing  a  meeting  place 
it  St.  Louis  to  discuss  the  banquet,  he  testified  to  something  that  was 
lot  correct,  did  he? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  are  sure  of  that? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  if  Link  testified  to  the  same  thing  he  testified 
o  something  that  was  not  correct  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Wtlson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  I  submit  that  Mr.  Link  did  not  so  testify. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  can  judge  of  that. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  He  should  not  be  permitted  to  assume  in  his  ques- 
ions  that  some  witness  testified  to  something  that  he  did  not  testify. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  have  the  testimony,  and  it  is  all 
>eing  taken  down. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  The  only  question,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  state 
t,  is  that  it  misleads  and  misstates  the  facts  to  the  witness  on  which 
ie  asks  the  witness  to  predicate  an  answer  to  his  question.  Under  all 
ules  of  law  it  is  not  proper  or  competent. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Wilson,  did  you  and  Clark  discuss  the  subject 
f  the  investigation  that  I  have  referred  to  when  you  met  him  in 
ipringfield  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  think  so.  I  think  he  brought  it  up  in  some  way. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  Mr.  Clark  tell  you  where  he  was  bound  for 
r  what  the  purpose  of  his  visit  was? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes;  he  did.  He  told  me  he  was  there  in  regard  to 
ome  furniture. 

Mr.  Ax  jstrian.  Did  he  tell  you  he  was  going  out  to  see  Morris? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  were  there  for  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  was  going  to  Peoria. 


736  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


Mr.  Austrian.  From  Chicago? 


Mr.  Wii  .son.  Yes,  sir. 


Mr.  Austrian.  You  go  to  Peoria  from  Chicago  by  way  of  Spring- 
field,  do  you? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Not  always,  but  at  this  time  I  wanted  to  go  that  way. 
I  had  some  business  at  Springfield,  something  in  regard  to  a  charter 
or  something  I  wanted  over  there,  and  to  see  some  member  of  the— 

I  think  Weston,  of  the  secretarv’s  of  state’s  office.  Then  I  went - 

»  */ 

Mr.  Austrian  (interrupting) .  Is  it  not  a  fact 


Mr.  Wilson  (interrupting).  Let  me  explain.  I  can  not  answer 
some  of  your  questions  without  explanation.  I  left  Chicago  on  the 
6.30  train.  I  could  leave  for  Peoria  in  the  morning,  then,  by  stopping 
all  night  at  Springfield,  or  I  would  have  to  get  up  in  the  morning 
and  leave  on  the  8  o’clock  train.  If  I  did  not  do  that,  I  could  not 
get  another  train  until  1.25.  That  would  put  me  down  to  Peoria  at 
probably  5  or  6  o’clock. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  could  leave  on  a  train  from  Chicago  at  0 
o'clock  and  get  to  Peoria  at  11? 


Mr.  Wilson.  At  night? 


Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  did  not  want  to  stay  at  Peoria. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  could  leave  Chicago  at  noon  and  get  to  Peoria 
at  5  o’clock,  could  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No;  you  can  not  leave  at  noon.  You  have  to  leave 
at  1.25. 


Mr.  Austrian.  I  meant  around  noon.  You  could  leave  at  1.25  and 
get  there  at  a  little  after  6  o’clock? 

Mr.  W  ilson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Do  you  remember  now  that  you  can  take  a  1.25 
train  from  Chicago  to  Peoria? 

Mr.  W  ilson.  Yes. 


Mr.  Austrian.  You  do  not  know  what  time  you  can  take  a  train 
from  St.  Louis  to  Chicago,  though? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that.  I  will  tell  vou 
why  I  know,  if  you  want  to  know. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  material,  it  seems  to  me. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Wilson,  the  letters  which  I  show  you  purport 
to  be  dated  June  26,  1909.  The  first  one  I  show  you  is  addressed 
“lion.  II.  J.  C.  Beckemeyer,  Carlisle,  Ill.’'  Is  that  your  signature? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  the  letter  that  refers  to  “  Doc  ”  Allison,  is 
it  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  say  “  Doc  ”  Allen  was  speaking  to  you  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  banquet? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  You  mean  “Doc"  Allison? 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  said  Allison. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  You  said  Allen. 

Mr.  Austrian.  No;  I  did  not;  I  said  Allison. 

Mr.  H  anecy.  All  right. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Wilson,  that  time  that  you  talked  with  “  Doc” 
Allison  about  that  banquet  was  about  the  4th  of  June,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  About  when? 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  4th  of  June. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  737 

Mr.  Wilson.  No;  it  was  later  than  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  When  was  it? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  could  not  say  as  to  that.  It  was  some  time  in  June. 
Mr.  Austrian.  You  did  not  even  report  to  “  Doc  55  Allison  the  re¬ 
sult  of  the  conferences  you  had  with  the  southern  Illinois  members 
at  St.  Louis? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  certainly  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  not  testify  before  the  grand  jury  that  you 
did  not? 

A  ilson.  No ;  I  did  not ;  I  said  I  thought  I  called  him  up  on  the 

phone. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  your  testimony  now? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  think  so;  yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Wilson,  if  Beckemeyer  savs  that  vou  and  he 
discussed  the  writing  of  that  letter  and  that  it  was  sent  to  him  and 

received  by  him  in  April  or  May  of  1910,  that  statement  is  incor- 
’ect,  too,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  it  was  sent  on  or  about  the  day  it  bears  date? 
Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Look  at  the  letter  I  now  hand  you  and  tell  me 
whether  or  not  that  is  your  signature. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  presume  it  is.  It  does  not  look  like  my  “  B but  I 
presume  it  is.  I  have  some  idea  that  may  be. 

.  Alstrian.  Looking  at  the  signature,  you  believe  it  is  not  your 
agnature?  , 

Mr.  Y  ilson.  ]So;  I  do  not  say  that.  I  say  I  believe  it  is. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  does  not  look  like  your  signature,  does  it? 

Mr.  Wilson.  The  “  B  ”  does  not  look  like  mine. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  would  recognize  your  own  signature,  would 
mu  not? 

Mr.  Y  ilson.  It  may  be  possible  I  had  somebody  write  this  for  me. 
Judge  Hanecy.  That  is  not  his  signature;  it  is  merely  “Bob.” 

,  Austoan.  It  is  his  signature  just  as  much  as  if  it  was  “  Robert 
!j.  Wilson. 

Mr.  Y  ilson.  That  is  what  I  am  getting  at. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  just  as  much  his  signature  as  if  he  signed  wTith 
cross  mark. 

Mr.  Y  ilson.  I  may  have  had  somebody  write  this  letter  and  sign 
t  without  my  signing  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Y  ill  you  tell  the  committee  you  did  have  some- 
■ody  write  the  letter  and  did  have  somebody  sign  “  Bob  ”  for  you? 

Mr.  Y  ilson.  I  may  have  written  this  letter  myself.  I  have  a  type¬ 
writer.  I  may  have  had  somebody  write  it  for  me.  If  it  were  in 
ak  I  could  tell  if  it  was  my  writing. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Will  you  give  the  subcommittee  the  best  under- 
tanding  you  have  with  reference  to  that  letter,  whether  or  not  you 
wrote  it,  and  whether  or  not  you  signed  it. 

Mr.  Wilson.  As  to  that,  I  could  not  say  that  I  wrote  it  nor  could 
ot  say  that — I  no  doubt  had  somebody  write  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  YTiat  makes  you  believe  that  you  no  doubt  had 
imebody  write  it  ? 

70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  Gl-3 - 47 


738  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Senator  Gamble.  Is  that  your  letter  ?  Did  you  dictate  and  did  you 
sign  it? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  no  doubt  did;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  your  signature  attached  to  it? 

.  Mr.  Wilson.  One  of  those  is  signed  “  Kobert  E.”  and  the  other  is 
signed  “  Bob.”  It  is  natural,  I  think,  with  Link.  This  letter  is  to 
Link,  “Dear  Mike,”  and  the  chances  are  I  may  have  signed  it 
“  Bob,”  because  he  calls  me  “  Bob.”  It  may  be  possible  in  that  way. 
I  can  not  say  I  sat  down  and  wrote  these  letters  myself,  but  there  is 
no  doubt  I  had  somebody  write  them. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  if  you  did  not  write  them  yourself,  who  did 
write  them? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  can  not  say  as  to  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Was  it  Browne’s  secretary? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Sometimes  he  writes  for  me. 

Senator  Heyburn.  If  he  accepts  the  responsibility  for  the  letter, 
what  is  the  occasion  for  going  any  further  into  it  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Was  this  letter  sent  to  Mike  Link  on  or  about  the 
day  it  bears  date  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Was  one  of  these  sent  to  Mike  Link? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No  ;  the  one  that  purports  to  be  addressed  to  him. 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  was  sent  on  or  about  the  26th  of  June,  1909? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  not  in  1910? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  not  after  your  talk  with  Beckemeyer  in 
Springfield  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  At  the  time  you  had  this  discussion  with  Clark, 
what  did  you  say  in  response  to  his  telling  you  that  there  was  an 
investigation  being  had? 

Mr.  Wilson.  He  said - 

Mr.  Austrian  (interrupting).  And  what  did  he  say  to  you? 

Mr.  Wilson.  He  did  not  say  anything  about  the  investigation. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  he  say  anything  about  Tierney? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir ;  he  said  Tierney  and  White  were  there,  and 
he  went  over  some  talk,  as  I  understood,  in  regard  to  their  receiving 
money  for  voting  for  Mr.  Lorimer  and  also  from  me,  and  he  said 
something  about  it,  and  I  said,  “There  is  nothing  to  it;  I  do  not 
believe  there  is  a  thing  to  it.” 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  what  he  said  and  what  you  said  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Something  like  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  did  you  tell  Beckemeyer  when  you  had  a 
meeting  with  him  and  discussion  of  this  subj  ect  at  Springfield  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  told  him  about  the  same  thing.  I  said  that,  so  far 
as  I  knew,  there  was  not  anything  to  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  "What  did  you  tell  Clark  when  you  met  him  in 
Chicago  the  Sunday  preceding  that  interview  at  Springfield? 

Mr.  Wilson.  What  Sunday? 

Mr.  Austran.  Shephard,  I  mean.  You  met  Shephard  in  Chi¬ 
cago,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  739 

I 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  Sunday  preceding  your  meeting  with  Clark 
and  Beckemeyer  at  Springfield? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir;  I  would  not  say  as  to  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  Sunday  did  you  meet  him? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  could  not  say  what  date  it  was. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  was  on  or  about  that  time,  wasn’t  it? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Just  a  minute.  I  can  not  think  just  of  those  dates 
right  off.  This  was  some  time  ago.  I  met  Mr.  Clark - 

Mr.  Austrian  (interrupting).  You  mean  Mr.  Shephard? 

Mr.  Wilson.  You  mentioned  Clark,  and  that  is  how  I  got  twisted. 
I  met  Mr.  Shephard  one  Sunday ;  the  date  I  can  not  say.  Mr.  Daw¬ 
son  and  myself  came  dowm  town.  He  had  a  meeting.  There  was 
some  Democratic  meeting,  and  we  went  into  the  Briggs  House  and 
met  Shephard  in  the  lobby,  and  he  no  doubt — if  that  was  after  Tier¬ 
ney  had  seen  him — he  no  doubt  brought  up  that  subject,  but  I  can 
not  recollect  it  now. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  have  no  recollection  of  any  discussion  with 
Shephard  on  the  subject  at  all,  then,  in  the  Briggs  House? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  did  not  say  I  did  not  have. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  am  asking  for  your  recollection  of  what  the  dis¬ 
cussion  was  or  wThat  you  stated  to  him  and  what  he  stated  to  you. 

Mr.  Wilson.  No;  I  have  not.  If  it  was  after  Tierney  had  been 
there,  there  was  no  doubt  that  subject  came  up. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Was  Browne  present  at  that  interview? 

Mr.  Wilson.  He  was  in  the  lobby  with  us. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Was  he  in  the  barroom  sitting  down  on  a  settee? 

Mr.  Wilson.  It  may  have  been  in  the  barroom;  I  do  not  know  just 
where ;  we  were  in  both  places. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Dawson,  to  whom  you  refer,  is  Tom  Dawson,  the 
lawyer  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  you  and  Shephard  and  Dawson  and  Browne 
were  there  together,  were  yon  not  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  were  there  together? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Dawson  was  not  there  with  us. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Dawson  had  left  you,  had  he? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Dawson  had  been  there  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  When  did  Dawson  leave? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Dawson  came  in,  and,  wherever  he  was  going  to  this 
neeting,  he  went  on  to  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  What  discussion,  if  any,  do  you  recall  that  you  had 
with  Shephard  on  the  St.  Louis  meeting? 

Mr.  Wilson.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  it  was  probably  on  the 
same  line  as  with  the  others  that  he  brought  this  up,  but  outside  of 
shat  I  have  not  any  recollection.  If  it  was  after  the  time  that  Tier- 
ley  saw  him,  then  there  is  no  doubt  that  that  discussion  came  up. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Wilson,  I  show  you  a  letter  that  was  written 
ly  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  to  Hon.  Charles  A.  White,  dated  Ottawa, 


740  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


111*5  July  16,  1909,  and  I  want  to  call  your  particular  attention  to  the 
sentence  therein  contained  reading  as  follows: 

I  was  awfully  sorry  that  I  was  unable  to  be  with  you  yesterday  forenoon 
in  St.  Louis. 

Looking  at  that  letter,  I  will  ask  you  now  whether  or  not  your 
recollection  is  refreshed  as  to  whether  or  not  Browne  intended  to  go 
to  St.  Louis,  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

Mr.  TV  ilson.  I  do  not  really  know.  I  think  probably  he  did.  He 
had  some  political  stuff,  I  think - - 

Mr.  Austrian  (interrupting).  So  if  Browne  had  intended  to  go 
to  St.  Louis  on  that  day,  you  are  not  prepared  to  say  that  the  meeting 
was  to  be  had  with  reference  to  a  banquet  for  Browne  himself  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Xo;  not  at  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  TV  ilson,  this  banquet  you  have  referred  to  was 
a  banquet  to  be  given  the  minority  leader,  Mr.  Browne? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  by  minority  leader  I  mean  Democratic  leader? 

Mr.  Wilson.  That  is,  of  his  faction. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  was  a  dinner  which  was  to  be  given  to  him 
by  the  members  of  his  faction? 

Mr.  W  ilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  They  were  to  pay  for  it,  were  they  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  was  a  complimentary  dinner  to  him? 

Mr.  W  ilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Would  you  not  think  it  a  little  unusual  for  Mr. 
Browne  to  attend  that  meeting  with  reference  to  a  dinner  to  be  given 
to  himself? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  have  not  stated  that  he  was  to  attend  that  meeting 
with  reference  to  the  banquet. 

Mr.  Austrian.  To  go  to  St.  Louis  to  meet  the  southern  Illinois 
members  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Whatever  political  business  he  had  or  reason  for 
going  there,  that  was  his.  I  had  not  anything  to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yo  do  not  know  what  reason  he  had  for  going 
there  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Xo,  sir.  Possibly  politics. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  know  it  was  to  meet  the  southern  Illinois 
members  in  St.  Louis  on  the  21st  day  of  June,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  did  not  know  it  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  have  learned  it  since? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  omitted  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Wilson,  when  you  came 
into  the  hotel  whether  you  registered — at  St.  Louis,  I  mean  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  dare  say  I  did ;  yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  may  have  and  did  meet  some  members  down 
in  the  lobby,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  think  until  after  I  registered  and  until  after 
I  was  in  my  room. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Was  it  not  a  little  unusual  for  you  to  take  a  room 
in  the  hotel  and  register  if  you  intended  to  leave  so  shortly  ? 

Mr.  TV  ilson.  I  do  not  know.  A  man  that  is  going  to  stay  for  din¬ 
ner,  or  anything,  usually  registers.  I  suppose  I  would,  of  course. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  did  stay  for  dinner,  did  you? 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  741 

Mr.  Wilson.  No ;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  occupied  this  room  for  a  few  hours,  did  you? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  prior  to  going  to  the  room  you  met  some  mem¬ 
bers  whom  you  had  gone  to  meet  down  in  the  lobby  of  the  hotel  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  you  met  Beckemeyer  as  you 
were  coming  into  the  hotel  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Or  any  other  southern  Illinois  members  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  remember  meeting  any  of  them  until  after 
I  was  in  my  room. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then  you  went  down  in  the  lobby  and  met  some  of 
them,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  It  may  possibly  be. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  not  go  upstairs  with  some  of  the  southern 
Illinois  members  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  would  not  say  as  to  that.  That  might  happen.  A 
man  can  not  remember  all  those  things,  Mr.  Austrian. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  know  that,  Mr.  Wilson,  I  know  that.  Will  you 
tell  the  subcommittee,  if  you  please,  which  one  of  the  southern  Illinois 
members  first  came  into  your  room? 

Mr.  Wilson.  The  best  of  my  recollection  is  it  was  Beckemeyer. 

Mr.  Austrian.  He  stayed  for  some  time,  did  he  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  discuss  with  him  the  subject  of  Lee  O'Neil’s 
banquet  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  dare  say  I  did,  and  probably  other  things. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  was  the  next  man  who  came  in  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  can  not  recollect.  All  I  can  do  is  to  make  a  chance 
guess. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  do  not  want  any  guesses. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  can  not  say. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yo  do  not  know? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  think  probably  it  was — I  was  going  to  say  Shep¬ 
hard  ;  I  think  it  was. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Who  was  the  next  man  who  came  in  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  know  whether  they  came  in  next  singly  or 
together. 

Mr.  Austrian.  White  came  in,  did  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  expected  to  meet  White  there? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  know  that  I  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  caused  him  to  be  notified? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Beckemeyer — I  say  that ;  yes.  Probably  when  I  sent 
word  to  the  southern  members — he  was  one  of  those  southern  mem¬ 
bers,  but  he  told  me  that  Beckemeyer  met  him  on  the  street  and  told 
him  I  was  in  town. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  never  sent,  or  caused  to  be  sent,  a  telegram 
to  White  reading  as  follows : 

Meet  me  to-morrow  forenoon  without  fail  at  Southern  Hotel,  St.  Louis.  Give 
me  answer  at  once,  care  of  Briggs  Hotel,  Chicago. 


Robert  E.  Wilson. 


742  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHAEGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  just  said  a  while  ago  I  may  have  given  somebody 
authority  to  send  this,  but  at  the  time  when  I  saw  that  telegram  it 
was  so  near  my  handwriting  that  I  supposed  somebodv  had  written 
that  signature  to  look  as  though  I  had  absolutely  sent  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  now  tell  the  committee  you  may  have  given 
some  one  authority  to  send  that? 

Mr.  W  ilson.  Yes.  I  went  down  to  the  telegraph  office  and  tried  to 
get  the  original  of  this  telegram. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  was  not  very  material,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  It  was  to  me. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  expected  White  to  be  notified,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  know  that  I  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  you  not  expect  to  meet  White,  one  of  the  south¬ 
ern  Illinois  members,  at  St.  Louis? 

Mr.  TV  ilson.  I  say  about  that,  I  do  not  know  that  I  expected  to 
meet  White.  I  may  have  had  some  one  send  those  telegrams  to  the 
southern  members,  and  White,  being  one  of  those  southern  members, 
.received  one. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Wilson,  if  you  did  not  get  replies  from  the 
southern  Illinois  members,  how  do  you  know  that  any  of  them  were 
going  to  meet  you  at  St.  Louis  ? 

Mr.  TV  ilson.  If  I  sent  word  to  you  in  some  way  I  would  think  you 
would  be  there.  Would  it  be  necessary  for  me  to  have  a  reply? 

Mr.  Austrian.  If  I  was  going  to  travel  a  thousand  or  500  miles, 

TXT 

Mr.  Wilson.  How  many  miles  it  is  from  where  they  live? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Lou  know  better  than  I  do;  you  are  more  familiar 
with  the  trains. 

Mr.  Wilson.  It  is  only  264  miles  from  Chicago. 

Mr.  Austrian.  It  is  an  all-night  journey? 

Mr.  Wilson.  It  is,  on  a  slow  train. 

Mr.  Austrian.  The  only  train  you  can  take  leaves  at  night. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  get  any  reply  from 
any  of  them? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  whether  you  did  or  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Then,  when  Shephard  came  in  the  room,  did  you 
expect  to  see  him  in  St.  Louis? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  know  what  Shephard  testified  with  reference 
to  meeting  you  in  St.  Louis? 

Mr.  TV  ilson.  No.  I  will  tell  you  how  I  knew  Shephard  was  to  be 
there.  He  met  somebody  on  the  street.  He  was  there  on  some  busi¬ 
ness — 

Mr.  Austrian  (interrupting).  He  was  there  to  get  some  packing: 
for  an  automobile? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  know  as  to  that. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Did  he  not  tell  you  that? 

Mr.  AVmsoN.  I  do  not  know  that  he  did. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  743 


Examination  by  Mr.  Hanecy: 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Mr.  Wilson,  did  you  ever  pay  White,  Link,  Becke- 
meyer,  Holtslaw,  or  any  other  member  of  the  general  assembly,  any 
money  or  anything  of  value,  at  any  time,  to  vote  for  T\  illiam  Lorimer 
for  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Absolutely  no. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Did  you  ever  pay  anybody  any  money  or  any  other 
thing  of  value,  at  any  time,  because  they  or  anybody  else  had  voted 
for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Austrian.  I  desire  to  ask  just  one  question  further,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mr.  Wilson,  if  Mr.  Shephard  testified  “He  (refer¬ 
ring  to  you)  took  me  in  there  (referring  to  the  bathroom)  and  asked 
me  a  question — I  will  tell  you  the  question,  if  you  want  to  know  what 
it  is.  He  asked  me  who  the  lady  was  he  saw  me  with  in  the  St. 
Nicholas  Hotel,  in  Springfield.”  If  he  testified  as  I  have  just  read, 
was  that  testimony  correct  or  incorrect? 

Mr.  Wilson.  It  may  have  been  correct,  but  I  can  not  recollect.  As 
I  say,  it  did  not  seem  to  be  material  at  all,  and  I  paid  no  more  atten¬ 
tion  to  it. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Were  you  not  asked  before  the  grand  jury  with 
reference  to  the  conversation  that  you  had  with  Shephard  in  the  bath 
room,  and  did  you  not  testify  as  follows : 

I  really  can  not  recollect,  but  it  was  something  in  regard  to  the  call  for  this 
banquet. 

Did  you  not  so  testify  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  may  have. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Examination  by  Senator  Frazier: 

Senator  Frazier.  Mr.  Wilson,  what  time  did  you  say  it  was  that 
you  left  Chicago,  about  the  time  that  the  subcommittee  met  there  for 
the  purpose  of  beginning  this  investigation  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Some  time  after  the  primaries,  about — I  can  not  just 
say  as  to  the  number  of  days,  but  it  was — I  think  it  was  about  a  week 
after  the  primaries. 

Senator  Frazier.  On  what  date  were  the  primaries  held  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  The  15th  of  September. 

Senator  Frazier.  Where  did  you  go  then,  when  you  left  Chicago? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  took  the  train  and  went  to  Detroit,  where  I  stayed 
for  two  days.  You  may  ask  me — I  might  start  out  in  this  way:  I 
had  been  to  Doctor  Snyder,  of  Milwaukee,  for  a  month  before  the 
primaries,  up  to  the  1st  of  September,  and  during  that  time  I  would 
receive  telephones  and  messages  and  people  would  come  up  to  see  me, 
and  so  forth,  so  that  I  virtually  did  not  get  the  rest  that  I  should  have 

§otten  under  the  treatment.  You  know  how  you  will  be  disturbed. 

o  I  was  going  back  again  to  be  treated  afterwards.  He  told  me  to 
come  back.  But  he  had  gone  to  Europe  in  the  meantime.  He  left 
some  time  in  September,  probably;  I  think  he  left  the  17th  or  18th 
of  September.  Consequently  I  could  not  go  there,  so  I  was  going  to 


744  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

go  to  Mount  Clemens,  thinking  probably  the  water  and  everything 
would  help  me  out.  My  nerves  were  all  shattered  to  pieces.  I  had 
gone  through  a  campaign  of  two  weeks  and  the  primaries  were  com¬ 
ing  on  over  there  where  I  had  been  tied  up  for  a  month,  and  my 
nerves  were  wrecked.  In  fact - 

Senator  Frazier  (interposing).  I  am  not  so  much  interested  in 
your  nerves  as  I  am  in  where  you  were.  Just  tell  us  that. 

Mr.  W  ilson.  I  met  a  fiiencl  of  mine  there  and  he  asked  me  where 
I  was  going.  I  told  him  I  was  going  to  Mount  Clemens.  He  said, 
k  If  I  were  you,  I  would  not  go  there,  because  you  can  not  get  any 
rest  there.  There  are  more  people  there  than  you  will  meet  around 
your  own  home  in  Chicago.”  He  said,  “  I  am  going  to  take  a  trip 
and  you  can  find  some  c][uiet  places  there.  I  am  going  on  a  ways 
but  you  can  get  some  place  wdiere  you  can  rest.”  So  I  took  a  trip 
with  him.  The  first  place  I  stopped  at  was  St,  Thomas.  He  went 
on  then;  I  went  on  then  to  Toronto.  He  went  on  to  Montreal,  and  I 
met  him  then  coming  back,  and  he  stopped  at  Toronto  for  a  day. 
He  came  in  Saturday  night  and  he  left  on  Monday  night,  I  had 
been  taking  treatment  with  the  medicines  I  had.  My  eyes  and 
health  were  getting  along  much  better;  in  fact,  I  gained  12  pounds 
while  I  had  been  there.  So  I  stayed,  with  the  exception  that  I  made 
a  trip  by  boat  over  to  Niagara  Falls.  Outside  of  that  I  stayed 
there,  and  came  back  the  day  before  the  last  primaries. 

Senator  Frazier.  What  date  was  that? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Really — I  think  that  was  the - 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  mean  the  election? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  You  mean  the  registration,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  The  last  registration  day.  That  was  two  weeks  be¬ 
fore  election. 

Senator  Irazier.  Can  you  give  the  date?  Whuld  you  not  know 
about  that  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  think  it  was  the  17th  of  October. 

Mr.  Kelley.  The  16th  of  September. 

Mr.  Haneci  .  The  last  day  of  registration  was  either  the  16th  or 
17th  of  October. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  think  it  was  the  17th  of  October. 

Senator  Frazier.  You  went  to  Detroit  and  from  there  to  Toronto, 
Canada? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Frazier.  And  remained  there  or  thereabouts  until  you  re¬ 
turned  to  Chicago  about  the  17th  of  October? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir.  Then  I  called  up  my - 

Senator  Frazier  (interposing).  Before  you  left  Chicago,  had  you 
seen  any  notice  in  the  newspapers  or  otherwise  that  this  subcommit¬ 
tee  was  going  to  meet  in  Chicago  for  the  purpose  of  making  this 
investigation  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No.  I  had  known  they  were  going  to  meet  early* 
but  I  had  not  known  at  that  time  about  what  time  they  were  going 
to  meet. 

Senator  Frazier.  You  had  no  information  whatever  then  that  this 
committee  was  going  to  meet  in  Chicago  at  the  time  it  did  meet,  or 
about  that  time? 

Mr,  Wilson.  No;  not  around  that  time. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  745 

Senator  Frazier.  Did  you  leave  any  information  with  your  people 
or  your  family  or  with  your  business  associates  as  to  where  you  were 
going  or  where  you  could  be  reached  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  I  did  not;  because  I  am  in  the  habit  of  going 
away  and  they  do  not  pay  much  attention  to  me.  If  I  go  out,  I  come 
back,  and  that  is  all  there  is  to  it. 

Senator  Frazier.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  did  not  inform  anyone 
in  Chicago  as  to  where  you  could  be  reached  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  I  did  not;  because  I  felt  I  needed  the  rest  and 
it  would  be  much  better  I  should  go  some  place,  as  I  say,  so  I 
would  not  be  troubled  or  disturbed,  as  I  was.  I  have  just  come  back 
from  Milwaukee  now.  I  was  there  until  last  Saturday  night. 

Senator  Frazier.  During  your  absence,  did  you  learn  this  com¬ 
mittee  was  in  session  in  Chicago  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Frazier.  Did  you  see  the  Chicago  papers? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir.  I  have  not  read  a  paper  for  six  weeks. 

Senator  Frazier.  Did  you  get  any  letter  or  any  information  from 
anybody  that  this  committee  was  hearing  proof  in  Chicago? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir;  none  whatever. 

Senator  Frazier.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Your  absence,  then,  during  this  time,  was  not  for 
the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  service  of  a  subpoena? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Absolutely;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  not  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  testifying 
before  the  committee? 

'  Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir;  because  I  felt  that  nobody  was  asking  me 
to  testify.  Nobody  had  accused  me  of  having  anything  to  do  with 
the  election  of  Lorimer.  They  had  not  asked  me,  even  m  the  grand 
jury. 

The  Chairman.  I  wish,  Mr.  Stenographer,  you  would  repeat  the 
questions  that  were  asked  the  witness  by  Mr.  Hanecy  with  reference 
to  the  payment  of  money. 

The  Stenographer  (reading)  : 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Mr.  Wilson,  did  you  ever  pay  White,  Link,  Beckemeyer,  Holts- 
law,  or  any  other  member  of  the  general  assembly  any  money  or  anything  of 
value  at  any  time  to  vote  for  William  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Absolutely  no. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Did  you  ever  pay  anybody  any  money  or  any  other  thing  of 
value  at  any  time  because  they  or  anybody  else  had  voted  for  William  Lorimer 
for  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  legislature  now  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Were  you  renominated  at  a  direct  primary? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  In  your  district? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Chicago? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  On  the  15th  of  September? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  And  were  you  reelected  on  the  8th  of  November? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 


746  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  For  two  years  more;  the  session  that  will  commence 
next  January? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  else  of  this  witness  ? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Where  is  Mount  Clemens  with  reference  to  Detroit  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  About  20  miles  or  so,  I  understand,  from  Detroit  by 
trolley.  . 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Did  you  go  away  or  stay  away  from  Chicago  because 
of  the  sitting,  or  the  prospective  sitting,  of  this  honorable  committee 
in  this  matter  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  stated  he  did  not  go  away  for  that  reason. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  I  covered  his  staying  away  also. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  How  much  did  you  weigh  before  you  had  this  trouble 

with  your  eyes? 

Mr.  Wilson.  In  the  beginning  I  weighed  200  pounds  before  all 

this  trouble  came  about. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  How  much  did  you  lose  during  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  lost  30  pounds. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  At  what  time? 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  that  is  really  material? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  I  do  not  think  anything  was  material  except  the 
question  of  whether  he  paid  any  money  or  not,  but  it  does  throw  some 
light  on  the  question  that  this  honorable  committee  seemed  to  think 
was  quite  important  in  the  light  that  he  had  at  that  time — that  is,  the 
actual  condition  of  this  witness’  health  when  this  honorable  commit¬ 
tee  sat  in  Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  He  stated  he  did  not  absent  himself  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  avoiding  the  committee. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  I  want  to  show,  in  addition  to  that,  that  he  lost  30 
pounds. 

Senator  Gamble.  And  in  the  meantime,  while  he  was  away,  he 
gained  12  pounds? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Yes;  he  gained  12  pounds  by  the  treatment  he  took. 

Senator  Gamble.  The  committee  has  its  own  opinion  individually 
as  to  the  impossibility  of  securing  the  service  of  a  subpoena  upon 
him.  Of  course  the  witness  now  has  given  his  explanation,  and  that 
is  for  the  committee  to  determine. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  I  think  that  might  be  an  element  that  would  be  of 
more  or  less  importance  in  determining  that  question. 

Senator  Heyburn.  I  think  this  statement  regarding  the  witness’s 
weight  might  very  properly  be  omitted  from  the  record  when 
transcribed. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Mount  Clemens  is  only  20  miles  from  Detroit,  is 
it  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  do  not  say  it  is  that.  I  do  not  know  just  exactly. 

Mr.  Austrian.  About  20  or  30  miles. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  about  that.  It  is  reached  by  street  car. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  did  not  go  over  to  Mount  Clemens? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  went  to  St.  Thomas,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 


INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  747 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  in  Canada? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  And  you  remained  there? 

Mr.  Wilson.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  .Austrian.  Or  in  or  about  Toronto  or  St.  Thomas,  except  the 
one  trip  you  took  by  boat  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  Lee  O’Neil  Browne  was  reelected  too,  was  he  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  By  direct  primary  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Austrian.  John  Broderick  was  reelected  too,  was  he  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  So  I  understand. 

Mr.  Austrian.  You  know  he  was,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Holtslaw  holds  over  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  And  was  told  not  to  resign,  although  he  sent  his 
resignation  to  the  wrong  party  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  probably  because  the  same  stamp  of  man 
would  have  been  reelected  otherwise. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  anything  further  to  produce?  Have 
you  any  further  witness? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  further  witnesses  ? 

Mr.  Austrian.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  May  I  ask  this :  In  my  brief  I  find  on  page  187  the 
printer  has  made  a  mistake  at  the  bottom  of  the  page  in  printing 

7,500  ”  instead  of  “  75,000.”  On  the  first  line  of  the  second  para¬ 
graph,  on  the  same  page,  is  printed  the  word  “these”  instead  of 
;4  three.”  As  printed  it  reads : 

He  testified  he  violated  these  penal  statutes  of  Illinois  for  $1,000,  perjury, 
bribery,  and  malfeasance  in  office. 

It  should  read  as  follows : 

He  testified  he  violated  three  penal  statutes  of  Illinois  for  $1,000,  perjury, 
bribery,  and  malfeasance  in  office. 

Senator  Frazier.  You  do  not  need  any  assistance  from  the  com¬ 
mittee  to  correct  your  brief. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  It  was  only  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Senator  Frazier 
that  probably  it  should  be  in  accordance  with  the  fact,  and  the  fact 
is  that  it  should  be  printed  “75,000  ”  instead  of  “7,500.” 

The  Chairman.  You  may  make  in  writing  such  corrections  as 
you  want  to  in  your  brief. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  I  thought  if  I  called  the  attention  of  this  honorable 
committee  to  it,  it  would  be  better. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  be  sufficient. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  There  is  one  other  question  I  would  like  to  state  to 
this  honorable  committee.  I  desire  to  cite  the  honorable  committee 
to  the  case  of  People  v.  Evans,  in  the  Fortieth  New  York,  in  support 
if  one  of  the  propositions  in  my  brief  and  in  reply  to  one  of  the 
learned  counsel  on  the  other  side;  that  is  the  proposition  that  a  wit¬ 
ness  who  has  committed  perjury  is  not  a  credible  witness,  and  no  con¬ 
viction  can  be  had  upon  and  no  credit  given  to  that  witness’s  testi- 


748  INVESTIGATION  OF  CHARGES  AGAINST  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

mony.  The  reply  of  learned  counsel  on  the  other  side  is  that  that  is 
not  the  fact,  unless  there  has  been  a  conviction  of  the  infamous 
offense— that  there  must  be  a  judgment  of  a  court  of  record  finding 
him  infamous.  But  the  court  of  appeals  of  New  York,  in  the  Fortieth 
New  York  Reports,  has  held  the  other  way. 

The  Chairman.  I  suppose  if  you  have  any  additions  to  your  brief, 
you  should  make  a  statement  of  it  and  submit  it  to  counsel  on  the 
other  side,  and  if  he  has  any  reply,  let  him  make  reply. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  It  is  the  case  of  People  v.  Evans,  Fortieth  New  York, 
page  1.  I  have  a  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  court. 

Senator  Heyburn.  It  is  available  to  all  of  us. 

Senator  Gamble.  What  is  the  page  of  the  report? 

Mr.  Hanecy.  Page  1.  I  have  had  copies  made  which  I  will  hand 
to  the  members  of  this  honorable  committee. 

Mr.  Austrian.  That  is  not  the  proposition  counsel  advanced  at 
all.  The  proposition  advanced  is  that  they  were  not  competent  wit¬ 
nesses.  The  fact  they  have  been  convicted  of  a  crime  of  committing 
perjury  goes  to  the  weight  of  their  evidence. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  see  this  case,  and  if  you  have  any  an¬ 
swer  to  make  to  it  you  can  do  so  and  hand  it  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Hanecy.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Austrian.  May  I  be  permitted,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  say  I  should 
like  to  make,  if  it  is  not  out  of  order,  a  formal  request,  if  that  is  in 
order,  to  present  this  case  orally  to  the  whole  committee.  I  do  not 
know  whether  that  is  the  proper  procedure  or  not,  but  I  spoke  to  the 
chairman  about  it  before  the  convening  of  the  subcommittee  and  I 
stated  if  it  was  not  out  of  order  I  should  like  to  make  that  request. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  all  right  to  make  the  request  and  it  wilfbe 
taken  into  consideration  by  the  subcommittee.  The  subcommittee 
will  now  go  into  executive  session  and  others  than  members  of  the 
committee  will  retire. 

(Thereupon,  at  3.15  o’clock  p.  m.,  the  subcommittee  went  into 
executive  session.) 


o 


INDEX. 


LIST  OF  WITNESSES. 


Page. 


Alschuler,  George  W.,  Democratic  member  of  house;  real  estate,  insurance, 
and  loans,  Aurora,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of . : .  470 

Beckemeyer,  H.  J.  C.,  Democratic  member  of  house  1906  and  1908;  attorney  at 
law;  Carlyle,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of . .  224,  402 

Bell,  E.  J.,  street  car  conductor,  Chicago,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  450 

Broderick,  John,  member  of  forty -sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  senate; 
saloonkeeper;  Chicago,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  422,  508,  547 

Brown,  F.  L.,  conductor  on  Illinois  Central: 

Testimony  of .  467 

Browne,.  Lee  O’Neill,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  mi¬ 
nority  leader  of  house;  Ottawa,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  585 

Casey,  James  W.,  real  estate,  Chicago,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  678 

Clark,  Joseph  S.,  member  of  general  assembly,  1906  and  1908;  Democrat;  house: 

Testimony  of . . . .  350,  399 

Curran,  Thomas,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Republican;  house; 
Chicago,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  580 

Dennis,  John  W.,  contractor  and  builder,  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  261 

De  Wolf,  J.  H.,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  farmer, 
Canton  Station,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of . .* .  335,  383 

Donohue,  Daniel  D.,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat: 
house;  lawyer;  Bloomington,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of . . .  516,  523 

Doyle,  James  W.,  machinist  and  inspector,  Wabash  Railroad: 

Testimony  of . ’ .  463 

Gloss,  Ella,  wife  of  George  F.  Gloss: 

Testimony  of .  446 

Gloss,  George  F.,  motorman,  Chicago,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  434 

Gray,  James  J.,  member  of  general  assembly;  Democrat;  condensed  milk; 

Belle  Isle,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  393 

Gridin,  John,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house; 
teaming;  Chicago,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  572 

Groves,  Jacob,  member  of  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house;  Camp  Point,  111.: 

Testimony  of . .  414, 460,  505,  522 

Holstlaw,  D.  W.,  member  of  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house;  farmer  and 
stO'  k  buyer,  Iuka,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  196,  683 

Hull,  Fred  G.,  secretary  to  chief  clerk  of  president  of  Illinois  Central: 

Testimony  of .  457 

Kirkpatrick,  Thomas  P.,  Collinsville,  Ill.  (in  1909  working  for  Grand  Leader 
Co.  of  St.  Louis): 

Testimony  of .  222 

Link,  Michael,  member  of  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house;  Mitchell,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  277,388 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3 - 48 


749 


750  INDEX. 

Luke,  Mrs.  Charles  S.:  Page. 

Testimony  of .  494 

McCann,  Paul,  page  in  house,  forty-sixth  general  assembly: 

Testimony  of .  486 

Meyers,  George  W.,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house; 
banker;  Paris,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  311 

Newton,  Jarvis  O.,  chief  clerk  State  Bank  of  Chicago,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  410 

Rossell,  William,  president  International  Association  of  Machinists  and  secre¬ 
tary  of  joint  legislative  committee  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly: 

Testimony  of .  452 

Shaw,  Homer  E.,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house; 
Bement,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  500 

Shephard,  Henry  A.,  member  of  general  assembly;  cashier  State  Bank,  Jer- 
seyville,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of . ; .  316 

Shurtleff,  Edward,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Republican; 
speaker  of  the  house;  attorney  at  law,  Marengo,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  695 

Simmons,  Charles  H.,  engineer  and  contractor,  Chicago,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  669 

Stermer,  William  H.,  assistant  manager  Briggs  Hotel  Co.,  Chicago,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  531 

Terrill,  Henry,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house; 
merchant;  Colchester,  Ill.: 


Vandeveer,  Mollie,  stenographer,  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  271 

Wayman,  J.  M.  E.  W.,  state’s  attorney,  Cook  County,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  368 

White,  Charles  A.,  member  of  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house  (no  em¬ 
ployment  at  present),  O’Fallon,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  37 

Wilson,  Robert  E.,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house; 
real  estate;  Chicago,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  717 

Wilson,. Robert  J.,  Chicago,  Ill.:  # 

Testimony  of .  675 

Woods,  Katherine  A.,  cigar  stand,  Elmer  Hotel,  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.: 

Testimony  of .  524 

Wright,  Edwin  R.,  president  Illinois  Federation  of  Labor: 

Testimony  of .  345 

Zentner,  Fred,  traveling  salesman: 

Testimony  of .  537 

A. 

Alschuler,  George  W.,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  house,  real 

estate,  insurance,  and  loans,  Aurora,  Ill.,  testimony  of .  470 

Am  friendly  with  Col.  Copely,  a  Republican .  476 

As  to  Democrats  I  had  talked  with  in  regard  to  Senatorship .  482 

As  to  length  of  roll  call  day  Lorimer  elected .  481 

As  to  where  Browne  was  during  the  session  when  Lorimer  was  elected .  478,  479,  480 

As  to  where  I  sat  with  reference  to  Browne  and  Meyers .  471 

Brother  of  Samuel  Alschuler,  Democratic  candidate  for  governor  in  1900. .  470 

Browne  and  I  had  conversed  with  reference  to  who  were  going  to  vote  for 
Lorimer.  Browne  said  he  had  enough,  he  thought,  the  night  of  the 

25th . • . . . .  481,482 

Copely  is  now  nominee  for  Congress  for  that  district;  he  was  at  Springfield 

Sart  of  the  session;  he  was  for  Lorimer  and  was  a  close  friend  of  Governor 

►eneen .  477 

Don’t  think  I  told  Browne  of  any  Democrats  I  had  got  to  vote  for  Lorimer.  481,  482 
Do  not  remember  whom  I  talked  to  that  morning  before  voting  for  Lorimer; 
never  left  my  seat;  was  right  there  and  saw  Browne .  474, 475 


INDEX. 


751 


Alschuler,  George  W.— Continued.  Page. 

During  ballot  for  Senator,  Browne  being  minority  leader,  eyes  would  nat¬ 
urally  be  on  him .  471 

English  made  a  speech  day  of  Lorimer’s  election . . - _ .  484 

First  knew  Meyers  last  session;  believed  him  truthful  until  this  testimony 

of  his  as  to  coming  down  to  Browne’s  desk;  he  did  not  come .  474 

I  mean  to  say  after  12  o’clock,  when  vote  was  being  taken,  my  eyes  were  on 

Browne .  476 

I  was  a  Browne  factionist .  474 

Lorimer  had  been  voted  for  before  May  26 .  473,  474 

McCann,  page,  did  most  of  Browne’s  work .  477 

McCann,  page,  was  standing  at  the  desk  of  Browne;  he  went  to  the  clerk 
and  got  some  roll  calls  and  brought  them  back  and  handed  me  one  ....  471 

Member  of  legislature,  Democratic,  now .  470 

Most  of  my  talk  with  Democrats  was  to  defeat  Hopkins .  472,  473 

Never  spoke  of  Dan  Barnes  in  connection  with  the  Senator .  476 

No  money  that  I  know  of  at  Springfield  for  the  election  of  Senator;  haven’t 

said  there  was . . . . .  475,  476 

Nobody  offered  me  anything  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  472 

Number  of  speeches  were  made  day  of  Lorimer  election;  Browne  spoke 

during  the  joint  session  before  his  name  was  called .  483,  484 

Reasons  for  watching  Browne .  479,  480 

Senator  Hopkins  and  I  were  hostile .  472 

Senator  Hopkins  lives  in  my  town .  470 

Tippit  was  the  leader  of  the  minority  faction  of  the  Democratic  side;  he 
voted  for  Lorimer.  (Witness  names  Blair  and  others  as  members  of  Tip- 

pit  faction,  all  of  whom  voted  for  Lorimer.) .  485 

Voted  for  Lorimer . _ .  471 

When  the  senators  came  in  some  of  the  house  vacated  their  seats,  and  there 
was  considerable  confusion  at  the  time .  483 

B. 

Banquet  for  Browne  (Beckemeyer) .  402,  409 

Banquet  for  Browne  (Browne) .  611,  612 

Banquet  for  Browne  (Wilson) .  728,  735 

Barnes,  Clifford  W. : 

Affidavit  and  letter  of .  3 

Prefers  not  to  appear  personally  or  by  attorney .  15 

Was  not  prepared  to  offer  anything  in  support  of  charges,  but  requested 
Chicago  Tribune  be  permitted  to  appear  bycounsel(Heyburn;  Report,  15). 
Beckemeyer,  H.  J.  C.,  Democratic  member  of  house  1906  and  1908;  attomey-at- 

law,  Carlyle,  Ill.,  testimony  of . . .  224,  402 

Abrahams,  Emanuel;  know  him;  Democratic  member  of  legislature;  was  at 
his  place,  think  April  30,  1910;  we  talked  about  election  of  Lorimer; 
Welch,  of  Carlyle,  was  present  (details  of  conversation  with  Abrahams) .  231,  232 
After  talk  with  Browne  I  inquired  of  other  Democrats  who  said  they  were 

going  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  several  said  they  were  not  going  to .  225 

Arnold  talked  about  the  grand  jury  indicting  me .  255 

As  I  remember,  conversation  Link  and  I  had  was  beginning  of  first  trial  of 
Browne  while  we  were  waiting  as  witnesses;  Link  had  then  been  indicted .  249 

As  to  conversation  had  with  Officer  Keeley  when  he  took  me  out  to  dinner.  243 
As  to  conversation  with  Link,  and  my  saying  our  testimony  ought  to  fit  in 

this  case,  and  Link’s  reply . . .  248 

As  to  how  I  came  to  be  in  custody  of  an  officer;  he  lived  at  the  hotel  part  of 

the  time  in  my  home  town ;  in  ( 'hicago  he  went  with  me  every  place .  .  .  260,  261 
As  to  how  long  officer  stayed  with  me  after  I  first  appeared  before  grand 
jury;  reasons  why  I  went  out  of  the  State;  Mermaine,  officer  of  the  State’s 
attorney’s  office,  went  with  me;  he  kept  me  from  being  summoned 

before  the  Springfield  grand  jury . . .  258 

As  to  list  of  names  Browne  presented  to  me  on  the  24th;  think  it  had  a 
goodly  number  of  Democrats  on;  I  said  to  Browne,  “I’ve  found  that  all 
the  boys  were  going  to  vote  that  way  and  I  was  going  to  vote  ■with  them;  ” 

as  result  of  that  I  took  this  $  1,000 .  257 

As  to  meeting  Clark,  Wilson,  Shephard,  and  White  at  St.  Louis.  . . .  403,  404,  405 
As  to  meeting  Tierney  (Turner)  in  my  home  town,  and  conversation  held.  405, 

406.  407.  408 


752 


INDEX. 


Beckemeyer,  H.  J.  C. — Continued.  Page. 

As  to  my  testimony  at  first  trial  of  People  v.  Browne .  252 

As  to  stating  to  Welch  and  Keeley  that  I  would  have  to  go  and  ask  Wayman 

what  I  said  to  the  grand  jury .  245 

As  to  the  different  times  I  testified  before  the  grand  jury . . .  242 

As  to  what  Browne  gave  me  the  $1,000  for  on  the  21st  of  June;  he  stated, 

‘  ‘  Here  is  the  Lorimer  money,  and  there  will  be  some  more  in  a  few  weeks/  ’ 
could  not  possibly  infer  anything  else  $1,000  was  paid  me  in  consequence 

of  my  having  voted  for  Lorimer .  256 

As  to  where  I  went  writh  Officer  Keeley .  245 

As  to  whether  I  received  $1,000  as  a  bribe .  410 

As  well  as  I  remember,  had  no  talk  wdth  Wayman  or  Arnold  before  I  w'ent 
into  the  grand  jury  room,  a  week  or  so  after  publication  of  story  in 

Tribune .  237 

Asked  as  to  testimony  at  second  trial  of  People  v.  Browne .  250 

At  the  time  Browne  gave  me  the  $1,000  he  said  there  would  be  some  more 
in  the  future;  received  a  telegram  subsequently  from  Robert  E.  Wilson, 
Democratic  member  of  house  from  Cook  County,  which  I  destroyed 

immediately,  to  meet  Wilson  in  St.  Louis .  228 

At  time  I  was  subpoenaed  to  come  before  grand  jury  my  wife  was  very  sick; 

think  there  was  one  time  they  sent  for  me  to  come  home .  252 

At  Wilson’s  room  think  he  made  statement  that  he  had  a  $500  note  that 
he  was  instructed  to  give  Shephard;  seems  to  me  he  said  Browne  told 

him  to . ‘ .  229 

Browne  at  no  time  or  place  before  Lorimer  was  elected  ever  told  me  that  he 

or  anybody  would  give  me  anything  if  I  voted  for  Lorimer .  234,  235 

Called  on  Gov.  Deneen  and  asked  what  he  thought  of  my  resigning  legis¬ 
lative  office;  this  was  after  I  had  made  statement  of  receiving  $1,000  and 

$900;  he  told  me  to  ask  Wayman’s  advice .  409 

Chicago  Daily  News,  think  possibly  received  a  communication  from  the 
managing  editor  of;  think  I  wrote  to  him;  sent  a  telegram  to  him  dated 

May  2,  1910 . . .  230 

Circumstances  as  to  Browne’s  giving  me  the  $1,000 .  227,  228 

Did  not  tell  grand  jury  I  never  was  promised  money  or  never  understood 
was  to  get  money  before  I  voted  for  Lorimer;  think  about  all  I  said  was 
that  I  received  $1,000  that  was  supposed,  as  I  understood,  to  be  Lorimer 


Did  not  understand  before  $1,000  was  paid  me  that  I  was  to  be  paid  any 

sum  for  voting  for  Lorimer .  259 

Did  not  vote  for  Lorimer  because  of  any  promise  from  any  source  that  I 
would  receive  anything  of  value;  was  willing  to  go  with  the  majority  of 

the  boys  any  place  at  any  time . . ... .  235 

Dispatch  to  managing  editor  Chicago  Daily  News:  “No  one  ever  talked  to 
me  about  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer  *  *  *  ;  know  nothing  of  a 

jackpot,  etc.” .  230 

Do  not  know  who  requested  me  to  go  to  Browne’s  room;  in  my  mind  it  was 

Michael  Giblin,  Browne’s  private  secretary .  225 

Do  not  remember  saying  to  Browne  I  would  rather  vote  for  Lorimer  than 
any  other  Republican  I  knew,  etc.;  did  ask  him  what  Democrats  he 

knew  would  vote  for  Lorimer .  233 

Do  not  remember  that  I  told  Arnold  or  Marshall  that  I  hadn’t’ received  any 
money  from  Browne  or  anybody  for  voting  for  Lorimer;  I  might  have 

some  time  during  the  day .  247 

Do  not  think  I  mentioned  Lorimer’s  name  at  my  home;  did  mention  to 
some  leading  Democrats  of  my  district  question  of  voting  for  Repub- 


Lorimer . . .  236 

Do  not  think  many  Democrats  would  have  voted  for  Deneen .  233 

During  time  I  went  into  custody  about  first  week  in  May  until  after  June 
30th  my  hotel  bills  were  paid  by  the  officer  with  me;  little  incidental 

expenses  I  paid  myself .  260 

First  time  I  went  before  grand  jury  I  was  not  asked  whether  I  had  been 


Gavin,  John,  had  conversation  with,  when  officer  was  with  me  (conver- 

.  •  •  .  m  •  .  ..  .  .  '  /x  .  ^  /> 


Gavin  asked  me  whether  it  was  Keeley  that  got  the  confession  out  of  me; 

I  answered,  “No”;  think  possibly  I  called  Wayman  a  four  flusher .  251 


INDEX. 


753 

Beckemeyer,  H.  J.  C. — Continued.  Page. 

Had  no  indication  that  if  I  did  vote  for  Lorimer  I  was  to  be  paid  anything 

of  value . 235 

Had  not  voted  for  Lorimer  or  any  other  Republican  until  26th  of  May, 

when  I  voted  for  Lorimer .  257 

Had  talk  with  Browne  before  I  voted  for  Lorimer  (conversation  given); 
discussed  voting  for  anybody  to  beat  Hopkins;  number  of  us  expressed 

willingness  to  vote  for  Shurtleff,  who  was  speaker  of  the  house .  232 

I  stated  at  first  Browne  trial  that  the  $1,000  I  got  was  Lorimer  money. . . .  259 

I  told  Turner  that  I  never  got  any  money  for  voting  for  William  Lorimer, 
and  that  I  never  received  any  because  I  had  voted  for  him;  that  was 

not  the  truth . 408 

I  voted  for  Shurtleff  for  speaker  of  the  house;  practically  every  Democrat 

in  house  voted  for  Shurtleff  for  speaker .  232 

Knew  letter  from  Wilson  was  antedated  when  I  received  it;  reasons  for 


Late  in  session,  when  many  votes  had  been  taken,  Democratic  members 


Met  Browne  at  Southern  Hotel,  St.  Louis,  June  21,  1909  (identify  signa¬ 
ture  of  Browne  on  hotel  register) .  253 

Met  Browne  in  St.  Louis  21st  of  June;  Browne  there  handed  me  a  roll  of 
money  which  he  said  was  $1,000;  he  said,  “This  is  Lorimer  money  only 

other  person  there  was  Henry  Shephard .  227 

Met  Michael  Link  at  office  of  State’s  attorney  a  week  prior  to  first  trial  of 


Met  State’s  attorney  in  back  room  of  grand  jury  room;  Victor  Arnold, 
one  of  his  assistants,  was  with  him;  they  asked  me  there  whether  I  had 
received  anything  for  voting  for  Lorimer;  made  complete  statement 

same  I  have  made  here .  236 

Met  White  in  St.  Louis  on  the  street,  think  same  day  I  was  at  Wilson’s 

room . . .* .  228 

Met  Wilson  in  St.  Louis,  think  15th  of  July,  at  Southern  Hotel;  Joe  Clark, 
of  Vandalia,  Democratic  member  of  house,  was  present;  as  I  left,  Luke, 

Democratic  member  of  house,  came  into  room .  228 

Names  of  principal  candidates  for  Senator .  224 

Never  at  any  time  denied  before  grand  jury  ever  receiving  any  money. . . .  239 

Officer  Keeley  took  me  across  the  street  from  the  grand  jury  room  (testi¬ 
mony  as  to  drinking  in  saloons) . . .  242 

Only  testified  before  grand  jury  with  reference  to  the  $1,000  once;  went 

back  afterwards  to  make  some  explanation .  253 

Possibly  I  said  to  Link  that  I  did  not  think  Lorimer  put  up  a  cent  of  this 

money  himself  (witness  was  recalled  to  make  this  correction) .  265 

Possibly  I  talked  with  people  of  my  county  of  having  influence  in  patron¬ 
age,  possibly  with  Shupe  or  Murray;  think  possibly  I  stated  that  is  only 

consideration  I  got  for  voting  for  Lorimer .  408 

Prior  to  receipt  of  letter  from  Wilson  I  had  talk  with  him  as  to  the  advis¬ 
ability  of  sending  out  this  kind  of  a  letter;  met  Wilson  by  appointment 


Prior  to  time  I  voted  for  Lorimer,  nothing  was  said  by  him  or  anybody 
else  to  me  in  reference  to  my  receiving  anything  for  voting  for  Lorimer. .  256 

Prior  to  time  I  was  talking  with  Democrats  of  my  senatorial  district,  nobody 

offered  or  promised  to  pay  me  anything  for  voting  for  Lorimer .  234 

Received  letter  from  Robert  E.  Wilson  about  first  week  in  May,  1910  (let- 


Southern  Hotel,  in  Wilson’s  room;  details  what  took  place,  including  Wil- 


Southern  Hotel  register  of  July  15,  1909;  recognize  the  signature  of  Robert 

E.  Wilson;  that  was  day  I  received  the  $900 .  254 

Talk  with  Browne  in  reference  to  voting  for  Senator;  think  two  nights 


Testified  before  grand  jury  in  Chicago  as  to  conversation  with  Luke,  Clark, 


Testimony  before  grand  jury  on  first  trial  had  nothing  to  do  with  Lorimer 

vote  or  Lorimer  money .  253 

The  $900  Wilson  handed  me;  how  1  disposed  of  it .  228,  229 


754 


INDEX. 


Beckemeyer,  H.  J.  0. — Continued.  Page. 

The  $1,000  I  took  I  understood  was  because  of  my  vote  for  Lorimer .  258 

Think  communication  from  Chicago  News  asked  for  statement  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  White’s  charges,  etc .  231 

Think  I  denied  to  Officer  Keeley  that  I  ever  got  any  money .  243 

Third  time  I  went  before  grand  jury  I  asked  permission  to  go  home .  254 

Time  I  testified  before  grand  jury  I  denied  I  had  been  bribed;  those 

denials  were  untrue .  409 

Voted  for  Browne  for  minority  leader .  224 

Voted  for  Lorimer  May  26,  1909;  few  weeks  afterwards  met  Browne*  at 
Starving  Rock  and  had  talk  with  him,  and  he  said  he  had  a  package; 
shortly  after  that  received  a  corfimunication  from  Browne,  which"  I 

destroyed;  it  was  inviting  me  to  meet  Browne  in  St.  Louis .  226,  227 

Was  at  Abraham’s  saloon  in  morning  before  I  went  to  State’s  attorney’s 

office;  met  Victor  Arnold  at  that  time . ‘  246  247 

Was  not  in  custody  of  officer  after  the  first  trial  People  v.  Browne  was 

finished .  259 

Was  subpoenaed  to  appear  before  the  grand  jury  in  Cook  County;  Guilford 
Welch  came  to  Chicago  with  me;  conversation  with  State’s  attorney 

given . . .  235  236 

Was  taken  out  of  grand  jury  room  and  put  in  custody  of  Officer  Keeley; 
no  indictment  against  me  at  that  time;  went  to  hotel;  W7elch  came  and 

sat  at  table  with  us;  as  to  conversation  which  took  place  there .  241 

Welch  and  Keeley  went  to  Illinois  Athletic  Club  for  the  evening  meal! !  *.  *.  244 

Went  before  grand  jury  two  or  three  times .  237 

When  Browne  told  me  he  would  have  a  package  for  me,  nothing  said  as 
to  what  package  would  contain;  some  days  after  that  received  commu¬ 
nication  from  Browne  to  meet  him  in  St.  Louis,  21st  of  June;  at  that 

time  he  gave  me  $1,000,  with  statement  it  was  the  Lorimer  money .  256 

When  I  came  from  grand  jury  room  I  met  W7eleh  some  time  that  afternoon; 
was  kept  in  custody  of  officer  all  that  night  and  the  next  morning;  and 
officer  went  home  with  me,  and  then  into  Indiana  and  stayed  there  a 

week . . .  243  244 

When  I  came  from  grand  jury,  Welch  asked  me,  “What  did  you  tell  them 

a  lie  for?” .  244 

When  I  was  in  Chicago  in  custody  of  officer  I  went  home  when  I  wanted  to; 
no  threats  used  for  purpose  of  making  me  tell  anything  with  reference  to 

Lorimer  payment .  254 

When  I  was  in  St.  Louis  on  occasion  of  receiving  $1,000,  I  saw  Shephard _  403 

Wilson  communicated  with  me  to  meet  him  in  St.  Louis  15th  of  July; 
believe  he  then  said,  Browne  is  sick  and  he  couldn’t  come;  nothing 
said  why  he  gave  me  the  $900  on  that  occasion;  had  heard  at  times  there 

was  a  divide-up  after  each  session  of  legislature .  257 

Wilson  in  St.  Louis  said  nothing  about  voting  for  Lorimer .  257 

Beckemeyer: 

Testimony  referred  to,  by  (Report,  13). 

Bell,  E.  J.,  street-car  conductor,  Ogden  Avenue  line,  Chicago,  Ill.,  testimony 

of- . . .  450 

As  to  what  impressed  the  incident  on  my  mind .  451  452 

Have  known  Gloss  past  two  years;  we  worked  together  as  motorman  and 

conductor  little  over  a  year  ago,  for  about  two  years .  450 

Met  Sydney  Yarborough  year  ago  last  May;  was  introduced  to  him  on  street 
car  by  Gloss;  it  was  a  Monday  night  24th;  Gloss  told  me  Yarborough  was 
going  to  stay  at  his  house;  there  was  a  grip  lying  on  the  front  platform; 

I  saw  Yarborough  talking  to  Gloss  on  front  platform;  Gloss  introduced 
me  to  Yarborough  as  the  gentleman  we  were  to  meet  the  night  before. .  450,  451 
Was  before  criminal  court  during  Browne  case;  was  asked  by  State’s  attor¬ 
ney  to  go  into  crowd  and  pick  out  man  I  was  introduced  to,  Svdnev 

Yarborough .  45 1 

W7hen  first  testified  in  Browne  trial  I  stated  evening  I  met  him  (Yarborough) 

I  was  working;  I  corrected  that .  451 

Belleville  article: 

Browne .  645,646 

White .  172  412 

Bribery  alleged : 

Beckemeyer .  227,  228,  229,  253,  254,  256,  257,  258 

Dennis .  262 


INDEX. 


755 


Bribery  alleged— Continued. 

Doyle . 

Gray . 

Groves . -  - 

Holstlaw . 

Kirkpatrick . 

Link . 

Luke . 

Newton . 

Rossell . 

Shaw . 

Simmons . 

Stermer . 

Yandeveer . 

White . 

82, 116, 139, 178, 


Page. 

.  464 

.  393,  394,  395 

.  462,507,508,522 

_  197-202,  208-210,  684-694 

.  223,  224 

...  280,281,287,302,303,305,307,308,309 

.  495 

. 410, 411 

.  452,  453,  456 

.  503,  504 

.  669,671,672 

.  531,533,536 

272 

. 7.  7.7.7.7.77  41, 51, 52, 54, 55,  si, 

179, 180, 181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 194, 195,  412 


Bribery,  denied: 

Broderick  .  548,  549,  561,  568 

Browne  .77  608,’ 616,  620,  621,  633,  636,  637,  640,  641,  643,  644,  647,  648,  649,  659,  661 

.  355,  357,  361,  364,  365 

Cuimn .  .  581,582 

De  woif/;;;:  7. 7. 77. 7. 7. 77. 7  7. 7. . 33s,  343, 345 

Donohue . 

49s;  m  m,  <£2 

Wilson .  733,734,743 


Bribery:  . 

Four  members  testified  to  receiving  money  for  their  votes— White,  Link, 

Beckemeyer,  and  Holstlaw  (Report,  3). 

Lorimer  not  connected  with  act  of  (Austrian) .  66,  80 

Lorimer  not  connected  with  acts  of  (Report,  2,  3). 

Which  will  invalidate  election  of  Senator  (Report,  2). 

White,  chief  self -accuser  (Report,  3). 

Briggs  House,  Chicago,  meeting: 

Browne  .  .  604,  628,  631,  640,  644 

Gloss... 7.7777 77. 77 . 435,436 

Simmons .  669,671,672 

Stermer  . . . . . . . . - .  536 

White . 52,54,81,133,134,135 

Wilson  *7777. 7777 . 722 

Zentner .  ^38 

Broderick,  John,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  senate; 

saloon  keeper,  Chicago,  Ill.,  testimony  of .  422,  508,  547 

As  to  conversation  that  took  place  between  Holstlaw  and  me  when  he  came 
into  my  place  in  June,  1909,  Holstlaw  took  a  drink,  was  in  my  place  pos- 

sibly  half  or  three-quarters  of  an  hour .  562,  563 

At  time  Holstlaw  was  in  my  saloon  must  have  been  10  or  12  at  bar  and 

maybe  20  or  30  further  back;  I  stood  at  side  of  the  bar .  571 

Decline  to  answer  whether  I  notified  Holstlaw  to  come  to  my  place .  567 

Denies  bribery  and  gives  reasons  for  voting  for  Lorimer  (Report,  14). 

Did  not  ascertain  Lorimer  was  an  avowed  candidate  till  two  weeks  before 
the  26th  of  May,  but  didn’t  know  whether  he  could  be  put  over  prior  to 

the  26th .  ^60 

Did  not  hear  of  any  “jack  pot”  any  more  than  I  might  read  m  newspapers; 

do  not  know  of  any  funcl  contributed  or  paid  to  members .  568 

Did  not  leave  my  saloon  during  time  Holstlaw  was  there . . .  569 

Did  not  say  to  Hols. .aw,  evening  of  25th  of  May,  front  of  St.  Nicholas  Hotel, 

“We  are  going  to  elect  Lorimer  to-morrow,  aren’t  we?”  Did  not  say  to 

him  “There  is  $2,500  for  you” . .- .  ------  548,  549 

Did  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  ask  any  member  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  talked  I  was 

going  to  vote  for  Lorimer  if  opportunity  presented .  550 

Did  not  vote  for  Lorimer  prior  to  26th  of  May . . .  550 

Do  not  think  I  ever  discussed  election  of  Senator  with  Holstlaw  any  fur- 
ther  than  I  might  say  “It  looks  like  Lorimer  could  be  elected” .  565 


756 


INDEX. 


Broderick,  John — Continued.  Page, 

Exhibit  1-Y,  indictment  found  by  grand  jury  of  Sangamon  County,  Ill., 
charging  Broderick  bribing  Holstlaw  to  vote  for  Lorimer.  (Agreed  that 
Broderick,  witness,  is  the  same  as  mentioned  in  the  indictment  and  that 
the  case  is  still  pending,  and  Holstlaw,  mentioned  in  indictment,  is  same 

witness  appeared  here.) .  55g 

Got  fairly  well  acquainted  with  Holstlaw  in  forty-sixth  session;  we  stopped  at 
same  hotel  (statement  of  Mr.  Dawson  as  counsel  for  witness). .  550,  551,  552,  553 

Had  been  asked  to  vote  for  Lorimer  by  good  many  men .  ’  561 

Have  been  elected  to  the  general  assembly  twice .  547 

Have  been  saloon  keeper  in  Chicago  for  17  years . 549 

Heard  Browne  make  a  speech  when  we  were  in  joint  session  to  "ballot  for 

Senator;  think  it  was  when  it  came  his  turn  to  vote .  569  572 

Holstlaw  and  I  did  not  go  into  my  front  office;  he  remained  mostly  at  lower 
end  of  bar;  refuse  to  answer  who  else  were  present;  my  barkeeper  was 

present;  possibly  10  or  15  people  there .  567,  569,  571 

Holstlaw  and  I  did  not  withdraw  from  rest  of  people  there . .  ’  574 

Holstlaw  had  been  waiting  for  me  when  I  came  to  my  place  of  business. . !  567 

Holstlaw  remained  in  my  place  presume  half  or  three-quarters  of  hour; 

did  not  go  out  with  him  when  he  left .  567  568 

Holstlaw  was  indicted  in  Sangamon  County  on  the  furniture  deal;  no  con-  ' 

nection  with  election  of  Senator .  565  571 

Holstlaw’s  object  in  putting  that  story  on  me  was  he  got  indicted  in  Sanga¬ 
mon  County,  etc .  554 

In  the  saloon  Holstlaw  and  I  passed  some  jokes;  do  not  remember  what 
conversation  was;  did  not  have  any  private  conversation  with  him  at 

that  time .  509 

Judge  it  was  in  June  Plolstlaw  came  into  my  place .  567 

Know  Holstlaw;  might  have  talked  with  him  night  of  26th  of  May,  but 

don’t  remember  that .  543 

Lorimer  asked  me  that  morning  to  vote  for  him  that  "day;  had  no  confer¬ 
ence  prior  to  that  to  determine  whether  I  would  vote  for  Lorimer  that 
morning .  566 

My  saloon  room  is  200  feet  long,  all  open .  569 

Never  got  anything  of  value  because  I  had  voted  for  Lorimer . "  549 

Never  had  any  business  dealing  with  Holstlaw;  never  paid  any  money 

to  any  member  of  legislature .  568 

Never  had  any  financial  transaction  with  Holstlaw.. .  558 

Never  heard  of  any  financial  transactions  with  reference  to  election  of 

Senator .  56i 

Never  knew  Holstlaw  in  my  place  of  business  but  once;  think  it  was  about 

month  of  June,  in  forenoon .  558 

Never  knew  Holstlaw  to  be  engaged  in  an  illegal  transaction  in  Springfield.  562 
Never  on  any  occasion  gave  Holstlaw  $2,500  or  any  money;  did  not  give 

him  $700;  never  gave  anyone  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer .  548,  549 

Never  said  to  Holstlaw  there  would  be  $2,500  in  it  for  him  if  he  voted  for 

Lorimer .  548 

No  recollection  of  Holstlaw  being  in  my  place  of  business  in  July;  did  not 

pay  him  anything  in  July . 568 

Not  divided  in  senate  as  factions  in  house .  566 

Not  sure  whether  Browne  made  speech  on  roll  call  or  after  voting  com¬ 
menced .  572 

Not  willing  to  state  who  were  in  room  while  Holstlaw  was  there .  570 

Refuse  to  answer  whether  I  introduced  Holstlaw  to  anyone  in  my  place...  573 
Substance  of  conversation  with  Holstlaw  was,  “Do  you  think  Lorimer 
will  be  elected?”  one  might  say  to  the  other.  “Yes,  I  think  he  will,” 

etc . - .  558,559 

Think  there  were  some  votes  for  Lorimer  prior  to  his  election.  I  voted 
for  a  different  man  most  every  day;  was  willing  to  vote  for  Lorimer  any 
time  he  was  going  to  let  his  name;  his  name  had  been  mentioned  for 

weeks  before .  559,  56O 

Voted  for  Lorimer  for  Senator  because  he  has  been  a  friend  of  mine  for 

many  years,  etc.  ;  not  because  of  anything  of  value  offered  to  me .  549 

Was  first  Democratic  member  of  joint  assembly  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  Lorimer 
came  to  me  that  morning— 26th  of  May — and  told  me  he  was  going  to  be 
elected,  and  asked  me  to  vote  for  him .  560 


INDEX. 


757 


39 

12 


Broderick,  John — Continued.  Pa£e- 

Was  at  Springfield  last  week,  Thursday;  as  to  where  I  was  Friday  and  Sat¬ 
urday,  learned  on  Friday  subpoena  had  issued  to  me  from  this  committee; 

did  not  dodge  the  officer . . .  570,  571 

Witness  declines  to  answer  question  as  to  his  writing,  to  Holstlaw  to  call 
on  him,  and  as  to  his  calling  on  him,  on  the  ground  he  would  be  com¬ 
pelled  to  give  testimony  against  himself .  556,  557,  563 

Would  have  voted  for  Lorimer  if  he  had  not  asked  me .  568 

Broderick,  Thomas  Dawson,  counsel  for .  428,  430,  509,  551 

Brown,  F.  L.,  conductor  on  Illinois  Central,  testimony  of .  467 

Do  not  know  who  presented  this  ticket  or  pass  (as  to  my  trying  to  pick  out 

the  man  in  the  criminal  court) . . .  469 

My  run  is  from  Chicago  to  St.  Louis,  and  was  in  May,  1909 .  468 

Name  “Charles  A.  White”  was  signed  in  my  presence  by  the  party  who 

rode  on  the  pass .  468 

Witness  shown  and  identifies  coupon  No.  28;  saw  it  on  fifth  month,  25th  day, 

1909,  on  train  17,  leaving  Chicago  at  10.15  p.  m.;  this  coupon  pass  was 

taken  up  by  me;  writing  on  back  all  mine .  468 

Browne  and  White  did  not  know  each  other  until  elected  to  legislature,  ad¬ 
mitted  (Hanecy) . . . . . . - .  39 

Browne,  suggestion  his  vote  should  be  given  Lorimer  first  made  to  him  by 
Speaker  Shurtleff  (Report,  14). 

Browne,  Broderick,  and  Wilson,  committee  find  no  warrant  for  believing  either 
moved  by  corrupt  influences  (Report,  14). 

Browne,  Lee  O’Neill,  admit  he  was  minority  leader  of  house  and  was  candidate 

for  position  (Hanecy) . 

Indictment  of,  Exhibit  B . . 

Browne,  Lee  O’Neill,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat; 

minority  leader  of  house;  Ottawa,  Ill.;  testimony  of . .  585 

Abrahams  was  the  first  Democrat  on  the  list,  a  staunch  adherent  of  mine, 

and  whenever  he  voted  one  way  they  knew  how  I  was  going  to  vote ....  665 

After  conversation  with  Shannahan,  Shurtleff,  speaker  of  the  house,  broached 
the  subject  of  Lorimer’ s  election;  I  told  him  I  could  not  tell  whether  I 

would  be  for  Lorimer  or  not .  592,  593,  594,  656 

After  session  closed,  and  after  I  had  seen  my  members  over  the  State,  I  went 
to  Gov.  Deneen  to  see  if  my  faction  couldn’t  receive  at  least  a  division 

of  the  minority  appointments  in  this  State . - .  659 

After  the  election  of  Lorimer  I  did  not  offer  to  pay  or  pay  anyone  for  voting 
for  Lorimer  or  give  any  money  or  promise.  I  did  state  to  a  number  of 
Browne’s  faction  that  I  thought  it  might  be  an  advisable  move  because 

Democrats  would  have  opportunity  of  getting  some  positions,  etc .  636,  637 

An  added  reason  why  perhaps  an  election  was  brought  about,  Gov.  De¬ 
neen  was  not  very  popular .  657,  658 

A  nnounced  in  my  speech  that  I  intended  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  668 

Approached  Link  about  voting  for  Lorimer,  as  to  conversation  between  me 

and  Link .  595 

As  to  altercations  Conway  has  had .  609 

As  to  borrowing  money  from  White  and  taking  money  from  him. . . .  620,  621,  652 

As  to  contributions  to  my  defense  in  these  suits .  661 

As  to  conversation  with  Luke .  602 

As  to  having  other  talks  with  White  about  election  of  Lorimer .  602 

As  to  how  message  was  carried  to  our  faction  that  vote  was  to  be  taken  on 

the  26th .  661 

As  to  meeting  Beckemeyer  and  White  in  hallway  of  St.  Nicholas  Hotel 
several  nights  before  election  of  Lorimer;  White  was  drunk;  Beckemeyer 

had  been  drinking  and  showed  it  plainly;  conversation  given .  591,  592 

As  to  my  efforts  to  secure  White  a  job .  613,  614 

As  to  my  intimacy  with  Lorimer .  624,  625 

As  to  my  remembering  whether  White  was  in  my  rooms  on  May  25 .  628 

As  to  the  extent  of  my  relations  with  White .  586,  587,  589,  590,  653 

As  to  the  order  in  which  I  saw  people  at  the  meeting  in  St.  Louis .  607 

As  to  the  trips  across  the  lake  with  White .  601,  602 

As  to  the  work  which  devolved  on  me .  588 

As  to  those  of  the  30  whom  I  spoke  to  about  voting  for  Lorimer .  600,  601 

As  to  trips  across  the  lake,  who  made  up  the  party . . .  620 

As  to  what  I  meant  in  letter  to  White  saying  hope  everything  is  all  right 
with  you,  etc.,  and  that  he  was  “fairly  prosperous,”  did  not  refer  to  the 
banquet . . .  622,  623 


758 


INDEX. 


Page. 


Browne,  Lee  O’Neill — Continued. 

As  to  what  was  discussed  at  the  meeting  in  St.  Louis,  and  length  of  the 

meeting .  606,607 

As  to  when  I  first  noticed  any  change  with  reference  to  White’s  support 

of  me . 624 

As  to  when  I  had  been  in  St.  Louis .  612 

As  to  when  I  made  up  my  mind  as  to  what  I  would  do  about  Lorimer; 
recollection  is  that  I  gave  Shurtleff  an  answer;  after  that  talked  with 

Lorimer  with  reference  to  his  candidacy .  594,595,658 

As  to  where  I  met  the  gentlemen  named  on  the  21st  of  June;  caused  them 

to  be  notified  I  was  going  to  be  there,  as  I  recollect .  604 

As  to  where  I  sat  in  the  house  in  relation  to  Meyers .  646,  647 

As  to  whether  I  had  lists  of  Democrats  who  would  vote  for  Lorimer .  597 

As  to  White’s  financial  condition .  615 

As  to  White’s  testimony  at  trials  as  to  my  calling  him  up  by  telephone  and 

my  promising  him  $1,000 .  641 

As  to  White’s  testimony  that  he  wrote  the  Belleville  paper  out  and  I  made 

corrections;  I  never  saw  or  heard  of  it  in  any  way .  645,  646 

As  to  who  paid  expenses  of  boat  trips  referred  to,  and  amount  of .  644,  645 

As  to  whom  I  advised  with  after  Shurtleff  came  to  me .  656,  657 

As  to  whom  I  consulted  about  voting  for  Lorimer .  595,  596 

As  to  Wilson’s  trip  to  St.  Louis .  621 


663 


651 


At  St.  Louis  on  the  21st  of  June  I  paid  nobody  any  money . 

Before  investigation  started  Judge  Hanecy  told  me  he  would  want  me  as  a 

witness  if  other  side  did  not . 

Began  candidacy  for  minority  leader  almost  immediately  after  election  in 
November,  1908;  was  elected  minority  leader  in  caucus;  two  names 
were  presented — Tippit  and  mine;  White  was  among  those  I  solicited 

for  support . .  585,586 

Been  no  Democratic  majority  in  joint  session  since  election  of  Palmer 

around  1890 .  663,  664 

Believe  a  few  Democrats  gave  Shurtleff  a  complimentary  vote  for  Senator 

two  or  three  times,  but  not  positive . .  659 

Best  recollection  is  I  didn’t  know  Wilson  was  going  to  St.  Louis  until  that 
day;  knew  he  was  going  there  to  see  the  southern  Illinois  members,  the 

ones  I  have  mentioned .  610,  611 

Broached  the  subject  of  voting  for  Lorimer  to  Link;  he  informed  me  he 

had  already  committed  himself  to  Lorimer .  602 

Came  to  Chicago  in  first  place  from  Ottawa;  went  from  Chicago  to  Spring- 

field;  then  went  to  St.  Louis .  605,  610 

Came  to  Springfield  Sunday,  the  23d,  and  registered  at  the  St.  Nicholas; 

did  not  see  White  during  the  24th .  627 

Can  not  say  Judge  Hanecy  is  my  counsel;  never  paid  him  anything  for  it.  651 
Can  not  tell  how  long  Luke  was  in  my  room  in  St.  Louis;  he  was  sober.  607,  608 
Closest  men  to  me  were  Surmack,  chairman  of  the  steering  committee  and 

my  roommate,  and  Wardell .  599 

Conversation  that  White  first  referred  to  as  having  taken  place  in  my 

^  room  night  of  24th  of  May,  or  at  any  other  time,  never  took  place .  640 

Could  not  get  any  job  for  White  after  session  closed  till  clear  down  to 

November,  and  that  was  not  accepted .  637 

Description  of  my  rooms  at  St.  Nicholas  Hotel .  588,  589 

Did  not  contribute  to  Link’s  campaign  fund  in  June  or  July,  1909 .  637 

Did  not  during  roll  call  of  the  joint  session  resulting  in  Lorimer  election 

send  for  Meyers,  nor  did  he  come  to  my  desk .  647,  648 

Did  not  during  the  roll  call  say  to  Meyers,  “Will  you  vote  for  Lorimer  for 

Senator?  that  there  was  plenty  of  the  ready  in  it,”  etc .  647,  648  1 

Did  not  feel  very  kindly  toward  Deneen .  667 

Did  not  give  Beckemeyer  $1,000  on  that  day  in  St.  Louis;  did  not  pay 

Link  any  money  that  day .  608 

Did  not  give  White  any  money  at  close  of  session  or  during  session;  was 

borrowing  money  myself;  think  aggregating  $90 .  640 

Did  not  give  White  in  Springfield  during  session  of  legislature  any  money; 

do  not  think  I  would  have  given  him  $100  if  he  had  asked  me .  616 

Did  not  go  to  White’s  room  in  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  on  May  24  and  he  did 
not  come  to  my  room,  that  I  have  any  recollection  of;  he  might  have..  591,  627 
Did  not  on  June  17  at  Briggs  House  or  any  place  else  give  White  $850  and 
say  to  him,  “Here  is  balance  of  your  Lorimer  money” .  644 


INDEX. 


759 


Browne,  Lee  O’Neill — Continued.  Page- 

Did  not  pay  White  $50  on  the  16th  and  say,  “This  is  part  of  your  Lonmer 

money  and  balance  I  will  pay  you  to-morrow  ” . - . . .  643 

Do  not  know  that  Wilson  saw  some  of  minority  Browne  faction  with  ref¬ 
erence  to  getting  votes  for  Lorimer .  599,  600 

Do  not  know  whether  I  met  White  on  15th  of  June  or  not .  626 

Do  not  recall  whether  I  asked  Wilson  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  602 

Do  not  think  I  spoke  to  Abrahams  or  Geisgawich  or  Forrest  about  voting 

for  Lorimer .  598 

Do  not  think  White  wrote  me  in  December,  1909;  he  wrote  me  Feb.  27, 

1910 .  624 

Dr.  Allison  had  spoken  to  Wilson  and  I  guess  others  about  giving  me  a 
banquet,  and  Wilson’s  purpose  in  going  to  St.  Louis  was  to  discuss  the 

matter .  611,  612 

During  15th,  16th,  and  17th  of  June,  time  referred  to  by  White,  he  was  at 

no  time  in  any  room  where  I  was,  only  places  he  saw  me  were  in  the 

lobby,  hall,  or  possibly  barroom;  had  no  such  conversation  as  he  refers 
to  and  neither  gave  him  $50  nor  any  other  sum  until  day  he  was  going 

away,  17  th .  643 

Feel  almost  as  if  I  was  somewhat  a  defendant .  617 

Felt  grateful  to  White  because  he  was  a  staunch  adherent  of  mine  during 

the  session .  588,  624 

Few  days  before  Lorimer’s  election  I  broached  the  subject  to  White,  and 
White  informed  he  was  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  that  he  had  told 

Lorimer  so . -  -  -  -  602,  603 

First  ascertained  White  had  written  Lorimer  when  article  appeared  in  the 

Chicago  Tribune  April  30 . 624 

First  elected  to  Illinois  Legislature,  house,  in  1900,  as  Democrat .  585 

First  heard  of  investigating  story  put  out  by  White  in  rumors  short  time 

before  April  30 .  631 

From  talks  with  White  prior  to  July  15  I  assumed  he  had  no  property  and 

no  steady  job .  614,615 

Gives  names  of  30  Democrats  whom  he  spoke  to  Lorimer  about . .  600 

Had  letter  from  White  after  his  nomination  requesting  me  to  intercede  with 

his  running  mate,  Smith . - .  586 

Had  30  specific  Democratic  votes  in  mind  when  I  assured  Lorimer .  629 

Have  met  Shephard  frequently  since  he  met  Wilson  in  St.  Louis .  613 

Have  no  independent  recollection  of  having  seen  White  night  of  May  25, 
not  saying  that  I  did  not  casually  meet  W7hite  somewhere  that  night  and 

that  subject  of  election  of  Lorimer  was  not  casually  broached .  591 

Have  no  recollection  of  any  talk  with  White  on  25th  of  May  with  reference 

to  election  of  Senator .  591 

Have  no  recollection  of  meeting  White  more  than  once  on  June  17,  1909; 

that  was  in  lobby  of  Briggs  House . . - . .  -  643,  644 

Have  no  recollection  of  Wilson  in  regard  to  his  meeting  Clark  in  St.  Louis.  603,  604 

Have  not  been  trying  to  conceal  myself  as  to  my  whereabouts .  649,  650 

Have  not  letter  received  in  answer  to  mine  to  White  of  June  9;  the  letter 
urged  upon  me  the  securing  for  White  a  job  if  1  could  and  a  desire  to 

advise  with  me  about  embarking  in  some  business .  638,  639 

Have  searched  for  letter  received  in  answer  to  letter  of  June  13,  but  not 
within  my  power  to  produce  it;  it  did  not  refer  to  the  payment  of  any 

money  to  W  hite . . . . . . —  639 

Heard  White’s  testimony  in  the  two  Browne  trials;  in  first  trial  he  said  I 
came  to  his  room  about  11;  in  second  he  said  between  11  and  2,  etc. . .  640,  641 
Impression  is  I  met  W’hite  in  Chicago  between  the  15th  and  the  17th  sev¬ 
eral  times  in  the  lobby  or  about  the  hotel . .  604 

In  letter  of  June  13  to  White  I  simply  stated  when  I  would  be  in  Chicago 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  him  an  opportunity  of  seeing  me  if  he  wanted  to; 
have  not  been  able  to  find  letter  of  which  this  of  the  13th  is  an  answer.  626,  627 
In  our  faction  I  started  with  39  and  finished  with  37 ;  Tippit  faction 

started  with  25  and  finished  with  27 . . .  589 

In  Shurtleff  and  Lorimer  conferences  no  suggestions  were  made  that  I  or  my 
followers  would  receive  any  benefits,  in  money  or  patronage,  for  securing 

Lorimer’s  election . . .  661 

Insisted  upon  going  upon  the  stand  upon  both  Browne  trials,  but  was  not 

permitted  by  my  counsel . .  648,  649 

It  came  out  during  trial  of  my  cases  that  Austrian  was  attorney  for  the 
Tribune  Co.  and  drew  up  the  contrac  t .  608 


760 


INDEX. 


Browne,  Lee  O’Neill— Continued.  p 

It  was  after  White’s  visit  to  Wilson  at  St.  Louis  that  White  and  I  made  trips  ^ 
across  the  lake .  y  g-jo 

It  was  somewhere  in  neighborhood  of  week  before  Lorimer’s  election  I 

talked  with  White  about  voting  for  Lorimer .  592 

Knev  W  ilson  went  to  St.  Louis  on  15th  or  16th  of  July,  1909  j  regretted  I 

couldn’t  be  there  with  W  ilson,  but  I  was  not  well . [ . .  _ 599  gp) 

Letter,  Exhibit  4,  dated  July  16,  1909,  was  written  in  my  home  town, 
Ottawa;  I  dictated  the  letter,  but  my  name  is  signed  by  my  stenographer  622 
Letter  exhibited  from  Link  to  Browne,  postmarked  12th  of  September  1910 
marked  ‘‘Exhibit  1-Z,  K.  F.  L.,”  in  which  Browne  is  congratulated  on 

vindication  of  charge  of  bribing  White .  617  g4g 

Lorimer  had  a  number  of  warm  personal  friends  on  Democratic  side;  inde¬ 
fatigable  work  upon  the  waterways  proposition  won  him  many  friends; 
do  not  think  any  other  Republican  could  have  united  Democrats  and* 

Republicans  at  that  time .  gg2  666  668 

Lorimer  was  at  Springfield  before  the  legislature  considerable  time  before  ’ 
his  candidacy  for  Senator;  was  very  active  in  deep-waterway  legislation.  649 
Lorimer,  Shurtleff,  and  Shanahan  assured  me  Lorimer  had  enough  other 
votes  than  the  30  to  elect . _  _  ggg 

McCann  was  upon  the  floor  as  a  page  day  of  Lorimer’s  election,  where  he 
usually  was  when  I  was  taking  active  part  in  proceedings,  and  that  was 

at  my  desk.  (Describes  in  detail) .  647 

Made  a  speech  in  the  twenty-sixth  ward  at  the  request'of  Wilson’s  friends 
and  himself;  said  I  felt  bad  to  see  this  matter  should  be  affecting  Wilson 
as  it  was,  because  what  he  did  I  felt  in  a  measure  to  blame  for,  etc. .  635 

Made  it  matter  of  honor  with  Lorimer  and  Shurtleff  that  no  roll  call’  ’for 
Lorimer  until  with  counting  30  votes  from  my  faction  they  had  enough 
to  guarantee  election ;  reason . 0  629  630 

May  have  met  Shephard  at  Briggs  House  Sunday  preceding  30th  of  April 
but  don’t  recall .  ’  gq4 

May  have  spoken  to  George  Hilton  about  voting  for  Lorimer,  but  think  I 
didn’t . . .  r)9g 

Meetings  between  Lorimer  and  myself  and  Shurtleff  and  others  were  quite 

frequent;  started  not  many  days  before  the  election .  596  597  630 

Met  Beckemeyer  at  Starving  Rock,  it  was  between  the  4th  and  21st  of  June  ^  ’  634 
Met  Sydney  Yarborough  and  Beckemeyer  in  hall  of  St.  Nicholas  Hotel 
and  told  them  to  go  to  bed,  but  not  that  night,  but  some  time  the  previous 

wee^ . .  641  642 

Meyers  gave  me  impression  his  people  would  not  stand  for  a  Democrat  ’ 
voting  for  a  Republican .  g4g 

Monaghan  is  a  Republican . !!.!!!!!!!!*  638 

Moving  cause  of  Democrats  voting  for  Lorimer .  638 

My  business  in  St.  Louis  was  to  see  members  whose  names  had  been  men¬ 
tioned.  (Further  explanation  given.) .  605  623 

My  judgment  was  it  was  wiser  to  elect  Lorimer  by  aid  of  Democrats  than  to 
^  allow  session  to  terminate  without  an  election .  661 

Never  paid  anybody  any  money  as  a  result  of  their  having  voted ’for Lorimer 
t  or  induced  them  to .  ggg 

L e\ er  paid  White  Si, 000  or  any  sum  in  any  sums  at  any  time  or  place  on 
promise  he  was  to  vote  for  Lorimer  or  because  he  had  voted  for  Lorimer- 

the  same  answer  with  reference  to  Beckemeyer  and  Link .  649 

No  proposition  was  made  by  Lorimer  if  sufficient  number  of  Democrats 
would  vote  for  him  they  should  have  a  division  of  Federal  patronage. . .  659 

No  recollection  of  Clark  being  in  the  Southern  Hotel  on  21st  of  June°or  in 

__  the  month  of  June  or  July .  gg7 

No  leport  to  me  that  White  was  trying  to  hold  up  legislation;  there  were 

expressions  that  they  didn’t  like  him,  etc .  589 

No  Republicans  offered  to  vote  for  any  Democrat  for  Senator .  665 

No  subpoena  served  upon  me  that  I  know  of . .  .  650 

No  such  converstation  as  White  stated  with  me  in  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  May 
25,  when  he  says  I  took  him  to  my  room  and  asked  him  what  was  the 
matter  with  him .  g^c 

No  unusual  commotion  or  disturbance  at  Lorimer  election  26th  of  May- 
very  large  concourse  of  people;  as  to  what  I  said  of  an  unpleasant  nature 

to  -hnglish . . . . .  035  030  I 

Nobody,  either  before  or  after  Lorimer’s  election,  placed  any  money  in  my  ’ 
hands  for  campaign  purposes . .  gg4 


INDEX. 


761 


Browne,  Lee  O’Neill — Continued.  page- 

Not  certain  whether  I  spoke  to  McGuire  about  Lorimer  movement;  do 

not  think  I  spoke  to  Murphy .  598,  599 

Nothing  of  the  kind  that  White  stated  as  to  bill  having  certain  marks  on 

it  and  my  having  it  changed  took  place .  640 

On  26th  of  May  Stringer  got  all  Democratic  votes  that  hadn’t  gone  to  Lori¬ 
mer;  Hopkins  got  all  Republican  votes  that  hadn’t  gone  to  Lorimer...  667 
Only  conversation  I  have  distinct  recollection  with  White  he  said  Lorimer 
was  a  friend  of  organized  labor,  etc.;  that  Lorimer  had  come  up  from  a 

street  car  man,  etc .  603 

Presume  I  told  Lorimer  what  I  was  doing  toward  furthering  his  candidacy; 
according  to  best  information  finally  assured  him  there  would  be  30 

Browne  Democrats  voting  for  him .  597?  598 

Presume  not  a  day  passed  when  White  and  I  were  in  Springfield  that  I 

didn’t  see  him .  588 

Reasons  why  I  was  not  permitted  to  go  on  the  stand ;  was  not  afraid .  654 

Satisfied  that  Clark  and  White  both  received  notification  of  the  meeting 

at  St.  Louis,  but  were  not  there .  606 

Saw  White  in  Chicago  during  the  time  22d  and  27th  July;  that  was  after 

the  Wilson  meeting  in  St.  Louis .  614 

Several  days  before  Lorimer  election  in  lobby  of  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  I  asked 
Meyers  whether  he  could  vote  for  Lorimer;  he  said,  “I  couldn’t  do  it 
and  go  home  to  my  people,  etc.,  it  would  mean  my  political  death;” 

other  conversation  given .  648 

Shurtleff  did  not  want  to  see  Hopkins  elected .  663 

Since  1889  have  been  practicing  lawyer .  585 

Stated  to  Shurtleff,  and  afterwards  to  Lorimer,  I  would  not  consent  to  a 

single  Democratic  vote  for  Lorimer  unless  his  election  was  assured .  595,  660 

Stringer  votes  were  all  complimentary;  did  not  take  himself  seriously; 

he  was  holding  a  Deneen  job  at  the  time .  663,'  667,  668 

Stringer  was  Democratic  nominee  for  Senator  selected  at  primaries;  think 

at  first  he  received  all  votes  of  Democratic  members .  656 

Sydney  and  Otis  Yarborough  did  not  testify  in  first  Browne  trial;  they 

both  did  in  second .  641 

Talked  with  White  17th  of  June;  he  said,  “Can  you  let  me  have  a  little 
money?  ”  etc. ;  I  pulled  out  either  $25  or  $30  and  gave  it  to  him,  etc .  644,  651,  652 
Testimony  of  gentlemen  with  reference  to  having  received  money  from  me 
was  occasioned  by  some  practice  never  equaled  in  the  State  of  Illinois. .  633 

The  little  gatherings  in  Shurtleff’s  and  Lorimer’s  rooms,  who  they  would 

consist  of .  659 

There  were  three  places  used  habitually  by  Democrats  for  meeting  places; 

St.  Louis,  Springfield,  and  Chicago .  606 

Think  I  saw  Clark  with  reference  to  voting  for  Lorimer,  and  De  Wolf;  not 

sure  whether  I  asked  Griffin .  602 

Think  I  spoke  to  Beckemeyer  about  voting  for  Lorimer  the  day  before  the 

26th,  and  possibly  the  26th . 596 

Think  I  spoke  with  Luke  about  voting  for  Lorimer .  596 

Think  Luke  spoke  to  me  first  about  the  Lorimer  movement,  rather  than  my 

speaking  to  him .  598 

Think  my  counsel  were  unanimous  upon  proposition  if  I  went  upon  the 
stand  denying  I  paid  money  to  White,  Beckemeyer,  and  Link  I  would  be 

indicted;  names  of  counsel .  655,  656 

Think  Shanahan  one  day  in  the  house,  after  it  had  adjourned,  two  or  three 

weeks  prior  to  26th  of  May,  suggested  Lorimer  as  a  possibility .  593 

Vote  was  not  taken  on  the  24th  because  we  wanted  to  make  assurance 
doubly  sure;  we  finally  determined  on  Tuesday  night,  May  25,  we  would 

call  the  ballot  on  Lorimer’s  election .  660 

Was  in  St.  Louis  on  21st  of  June,  1909,  and  saw  Beckemeyer,  Shephard, 

Link,  and  Luke;  first  impression  was  1  saw  Clark,  but  now  think  he  was 

not  there .  603,606,623 

Was  tried  twice  in  Cook  County;  this  is  the  first  time  I  have  testified  at  all .  620 

Went  to  Chicago  15th  of  June,  and  was  there  till  the  19th ;  White  came  there 
on  the  13th  and  stayed  till  the  17th;  did  not  tell  White  I  was  going  down 

to  St.  Louis .  604 

White  came  to  me  and  asked' if  I  would  not  communicate  with  the  street-car 
people  to  see  if  he  couldn’t  be  reinstated;  I  wrote  a  letter  and  received 
reply  that  he  would  not  be  reinstated,  etc .  590 


762 


INDEX. 


Browne,  Lee  O’Neill — Continued.  Page. 

White  had  not  borrowed  any  money  from  me  but  once  up  to  July  15;  im¬ 
pression  is  he  paid  it  back  tome . 6  [4  545 

White  never  said  to  me  in  a  letter  that  he  had  no  kick  coming  and  had  got 

out  of  all  sources  exactly  what  had  been  promised . . . _  024 

White  never  told  me  that  anybody  gave  him  money;  he  did  not  discuss  his 

St.  Louis  visit .  040 

White  not  popular  with  the  members;  no  one  seemed  willing  to  help  him 
in  labor  legislation;  he  came  to  me,  and  I  helped  him  in  preparation  of 

bills,  etc . . . . . . . .  587  588 

White  was  of  very  ordinary  education;  noticed  inaccuracies  in  his  spelling.  ’  653 

Why  I  picked  Beckemeyer  and  Link  as  my  working  force . .  605,  606 

WTilson  is  an  intimate  friend  of  mine;  last  saw  him  shortly  after  the  prima¬ 
ries,  which  were  the  15th  of  September,  at  the  Briggs  House  or  upon  the 

street;  do  not  know  where  he  is  now .  634.  632  633 

Wilson  is  high  strung  physically  and  mentally,  and  I  do  not  think  he  ever 
had  a  hardship  in  his  life  until  this,  and  he  took  it  harder  than  anybody 
I  ever  saw;  he  is  a  complete  nervous  wreck;  he  was  in  a  sanitarium  in 

Milwaukee  before  the  primaries .  632 

Wilson  was  not  one  of  my  lieutenants;  he  did  not  make  a  trip  to  St.  Louis 

for  me .  599 

Wrote  White  on  July  16  was  sorry  I  was  unable  to  be  with  him  yesterday 
forenoon  in  St.  Louis . . .  642 

C. 

Casey,  James  W.,  real  estate,  Chicago,  Ill.,  testimony  of .  678 

As  to  deals  which  took  Wilson  out  of  Chicago .  679  680 

As  to  Wilson’s  mail .  679 

Known  Robert  E.  Wilson  21  years;  he  puts  over  some  deals  through  my 

office;  his  office  is  with  my  office .  678 

No  business  transactions  with  Wilson  since  September;  last  saw  him  day 

after  or  second  day  after  primary  election .  678 

Place  of  business  101  Washington  Street .  678 

Wilson  is  a  member  of  the  present  legislature,  his  second  term .  679,  680 

Wilson  was  candidate  for  legislature .  ’  678 

Centralia,  meeting  at  (Clark) . *355,' 356,  364 

Chicago  Tribune,  petition  for  permission  to  present  evidence  (Barnes) .  14 

Chicago  Tribune  article  (White) .  4  35 

103, 104, 105, 106, 151,  152, 153, 154, 155,  157,  i59,"  i<31,'  162,163,*  1*65,’  166 
Clark,  Joseph  S.,  member  of  general  assembly,  1906,  1908;  Democrat;  house, 

police  magistrate,  and  in  lumber  business;  Vandalia,  Ill. ;  testimonvof.  350,399 
As  to  meeting  with  Beckemeyer  at  Centralia,  and  what  took  place' there; 
never  said  to  him,  “You  have  got  your  $1,000,  and  I’ve  got  mine,  but 

there  is  no  way  of  anybody  proving  it  ” .  355,  364 

As  to  what  took  place  at  Southern  Hotel;  did  not  go  into  bathroom,  and 

have  no  recollection  of  seeing  anybody  else  go .  353,  354 

Before  voting  for  Lorimer  I  did  not  have  any  discussion  with  reference  to  the 

appointment  of  John  A.  Bingham  as  postmaster .  400 

Browne  never  asked  me  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  365 

Did  not  discuss  with  W  hite  anything  in  reference  to  distribution  of  money 

during  last  session  of  legislature .  401 

Did  not  receive  any  money  from  Wilson  at  any  time  during  1909,  nor  from 

Browne .  304 

Did  not  say  to  Beckemeyer  or  Wilson  I  was  going  out  to  Morris  to  stiffen 

the  boys  up. . . . . . .  356 

Did  not  see  W  ilson,  in  St.  Louis,  deliver  any  package  to  any  member  of  leg¬ 
islature;  heard  no  talk  in  reference  to  money  or  payment  there .  365 

Did  not,  shortly  after  adjournment,  invest  any  money  or  make  any  pur¬ 
chase  in  substantial  amount  of  jewelry;  only  jewelry  I  have  bought 
within  last  five  years  was  two  small  diamonds;  believe  I  paid  $105;  as 

to  wffien  I  bought  diamonds .  400,  401 

Do  not  recollect  having  anv  talk  with  White  on  subject  of  Lorimer’s  elec¬ 
tion .  363 

Everybody  was  anxious  to  get  home .  360 

Few  days  after  talk  with  Beckemeyer  at  Centralia  I  met  Wilson  at  Spring- 
field;  then  went  out  to  see  Morris,  a  Democratic  member;  did  not  see 
Beckemeyer  there  the  day  I  saw  Wilson .  356 


INDEX. 


763 


Clark,  Joseph  S. — Continued.  Pa&e- 

First  voted  lor  Lorimer  in  May,  1909,  day  he  was  elected;  prior  to  that  had 


Have  no  bank  account  or  safety  vault  in  Vandalia;  some  times  gave  money 

to  my  wife  and  let  her  secrete  it .  363 

Have  not  met  Browne  in  St.  Louis  since  adjournment .  353 

I  am  under  indictment  in  Sangamon  County;  I  believe  some  charge  of  a 

furniture  deal .  357 

I  did  not  get  a  package  in  the  hotel;  was  in  room  with  Wilson  perhaps  10 

minutes . 357 

I  lived  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  in  Springfield .  367 

I  never  was  paid  anything  to  vote  for  Lorimer  or  because  I  had  voted  for  him .  361 

I  received  a  voucher  for  compensation  under  an  order  of  legislature  belong¬ 
ing  to  Richard  E.  Powers,  for  $600,  after  legislature  adjourned  in  1909; 
no  recollection  of  talking  with  Beckemeyer  about  Powers’s  money  . . .  362,  363 
I  voted  for  Lorimer  for  Senator  for  purpose  of  breaking  deadlock;  would 

have  voted  for  Shurtleff  as  quick .  359 

I  voted  for  Shurtleff  for  speaker .  359 

I  was  one  of  Browne  faction .  350 

I  wouldn’t  vote  for  any  Republican  unless  my  vote  was  sure  to  elect .  352 

It  was  certain  that  Stringer  could  not  be  elected  Senator  and  that  none  of 

the  four  Republicans  could  be  elected . . .  360 

Man  in  charge  of  coat  room,  perhaps  15  minutes  before  roll  called,  said  to 

me  “You  ought  to  vote  for  Lorimer  to-day,”  etc .  351 

Members  of  Tippit  faction  and  Browne  faction  did  not  attend  each  other’s 

caucuses .  361,  362 

Met  Wilson  in  St.  Louis  in  month  of  June  or  July,  on  occasion  referred  to 
by  Shephard,  Link,  and  Luke,  in  Southern  Hotel,  for  purpose  of  meeting 
Wilson;  request  was  either  by  letter  oi  telegram;  it  did  not  say  what  for.  353 
My  salary  as  member  of  legislature  was  $2,000;  $50  for  stationery;  mileage, 

about  $14  or  $15 .  401 

Never  talked  with  Browne  with  reference  to  voting  for  Lorimer,  or  with 
any  member  of  legislature  with  reference  to  my  vote,  that  I  remember. .  352 

No  one  else  in  the  room  at  St.  Louis,  15th  of  July,  asked  me  or  told  me 

why  they  had  been  summoned  there  by  Wilson .  356 

No  person  ever  asked  me  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  made  up  my  mind  to  vote 
for  him  at  my  home  Friday  or  Saturday  evening  previous  to  his  elec- 


Nothing  was  ever  paid  me  as  a  consideration  for  my  vote .  365 

On  26th  of  May  it  was  general  talk  that  they  were  going  to  elect  Lorimer 

that  day . .  352 

Reasons  why  I  came  to  the  conclusion  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  365 

Received  the  money  for  Mr.  Powers,  think  in  June;  Powers’s  money  was 
paid  me  under  resolution  of  legislature;  I  was  chairman  of  committee  to 

attend  funeral .  364 

St.  Louis  one  of  most  convenient  places  for  southern  and  south-central 

people  to  meet .  359 

There  was  nothing  certain  about  my  voting  for  Lorimer  for  several  days 
before  his  election,  but  I  became  conclusive  about  30  minutes  before  I 

voted .  399,400 

There  were  factions  in  both  parties  of  the  legislature,  enumerated .  360 

Think  a  great  many  Democrats  would  have  been  glad  to  vote  with  Repub¬ 
licans  to  elect  Shurtleff .  361 

Tippit  faction  gave  banquet  to  their  leader  a  few  days  before  adjourn¬ 
ment,  and  there  was  talk  of  giving  banquet  to  Browne;  at  July  15  meeting 

Wilson  asked  me  what  I  thought  of  the  banquet,  etc .  358 

Told  Wilson  about  White  and  Tierney  being  at  my  town,  and  his  answer 

was,  “There  is  nothing  to  it” .  356 

White  told  me  he  had  made  a  confession  to  Gov.  Deneen,  and  Lorimer 

was  the  man  they  were  after . . . - .  363 

Wilson  was  a  reputable  member  of  the  legislature;  that  was  his  second 

session,  I  think .  367 

Wilson,  when  I  met  him  in  St.  Louis  on  15th  of  July,  gave  as  reason  he 
had  written  me  to  come  that  he  wanted  to  talk  the  banquet  over  with 
me .  367,368 


764 


INDEX. 


Continuance:  Paga  ] 

Application  for,  denied  (Paynter) . ' .  32 

Application  for,  submitted  in  writing  (Hanecyj . ! . ...... 29 

Application  for,  to  be  put  in  writing  (chairman) . .  .  .  .  *  *  *  .*  ’  *  *  ‘  ]  ’  ’  24 

Opposed  to  (Austrian) . "  "  "  .  24 

Opposed  to  (Barnes) .  22 

Opposition  to,  to  be  put  in  waiting  (chairman) .  28 

Continuance  urged,  reasons  for  (Hanecy) . *’’”***  25  23 

Conversation  as  to  other  considerations  for  vote — “Jack  pot”  objected  to  ’ 
(Hanecy) . 42 

Counsel,  as  to  appearance  of .  25  28  29 

Curran,  Thomas,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Republican-  house-’  ’ 

Chicago,  Ill.,  testimony  of .  ’  ’  c^q 

As  to  why  I  did  not  haul  White  up  before  house .  583 

Been  member  of  legislature  two  terms . !..!!!!!!!!!!!!  580 

Believe  White  disreputable  when  he  tried  to  bribe  me . ! ! .' .  589 

Browne  sent  for  me  at  Briggs  House  after  first  trial;  that  was  "first  "time 

I  detailed  conversation  with  White  to  him .  583  584 

Day  after  election  of  Lorimer  I  had  conversation  with  White  in  hallway 
back  of  speaker’s  desk,  after  conversation  on  10-hour  bill,  White  said, 

“I  thought  Browne  was  double-crossing  us” .  581  583  584 

Had  conversation  with  White  on  or  about  May  27,  1909,  in  corridor  of  ’ 
statehouse,  at  Springfield,  day  after  Lorimer  was  elected;  he  said 
“Curran,  are  you  going  to  report  the  women’s  10-hour  bill  in?”  I  said’ 

‘I  surely  am,”  etc.;  White  said,  “What  do  you  do  that  for;  if  vou  hold 

it  up  there  will  be  something  in  it  for  us,”  etc .  “  531  532 

In  same  conversation  White  said,  “Was  there  anything 'doing' in"  that  ’ 
Senatorship  eiection  of  Lorimer  yesterday? ”  I  said,  “Not  that  I  know 

r  °  t  etc :  -  -  - . - . -- .  581,583,584 

In  forty-sixth  general  assembly  was  chairman  of  labor  and  industrial 
affairs  committee  of  house .  53Q 

Knew  W  hite;  did  not  before  forty-sixth  general  assembly .  581 

Thought  WTiite  was  crooked  right  along . . . ]  582 

D. 

Dawson,  Thomas,  counsel  for  Broderick . .' .  428  430  509  551 

Dawson,  Thomas,  member  of  general  assembly;  Democrat;  senate;  one  of 
attorneys  for  Senator  Broderick  in  Sangamon  County  case;  appearing  as 
counsel  for  John  Broderick,  who  has  been  subpoenaed  as  a  witness;  state- 

me.nt  °f  W  *  *  V  "  * ;  -  •  - : . T . . .  428,  430,  509,  551 

As  to  Broderick  being  subpoenaed .  432 

As  to  knowledge  that  a  subpoena  had  issued  to  Broderick  by  this  com¬ 
mittee  before  Saturday .  432  : 

Broderick  is  perfectly  willing  to  testify  to  this  committee  within  certain 
limits  which  I  stated  fto  state  the  fact  that  he  did  or  did  not  pay  certain 
money  to  Holstlaw  on  those  two  occasions,  but  not  to  be  cross-examined 
as  to  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  that  transaction  p  428) 

(matter  further  discussed  pp.  509-514) .  433 

Chaige  against  Broderick  in  case  I  represented  him  in  at  Springfield  was 
bribery,  in  connection  with  the  election  of  Senator .  434 

Did  not  confer  with  counsel  for  Lorimer  about  appearance  of  Broderick 
before  committee .  433  • 

Had  conversation  with  Judge  Hanecy  about  Broderick  testifying .  433 

Notified  Nixon,  sergeant  at  arms  of  committee,  I  would  see  that  Broderick 
was  before  this  committee  not  later  than  10  o’clock  to-day,  etc.,  testi¬ 
fied  as  to  proceedings  in  People  v.  Broderick .  430  432 

Repre^nt  Joe  Clark,  member  of  the  legislature;  also  Shephard,  Browne,  and  ’ 

Wilson,  arising  out  of  this  subject  matter .  431 

Talked  with  Joe  Clark  before  he  went  on  the  stand,  and  with  Mike  Link 

and  De  Wolf .  432 

W  as  told  on  evening  of  Friday  that  Broderick  had  been  in  my  office;  as  to 

my  knowledge  that  this  committee  desired  Broderick’s  attendance .  432 

Dennis,  John  W  .,  contractor  and  builder,  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.,  testimony  of....  261 

-Before  \\  hite  went  to  Chicago  he  didn’t  have  money  to  pay  the  bills  263 

Have  known  Charles  A.  White  6  or  7  years . [  ”  261 


INDEX. 


765 


Dennis,  John  W. — Continued.  Page. 

Saw  Charles  White  in  June,  1909,  at  East  St.  Louis;  saw  him  with  money 
lying  on  the  table  when  he  was  paying  bills;  couldn’t  tell  how  much 

there  was .  262 

Was  a  member  of  the  union  but  am  not  now;  White  and  I  worked  for  the 

same  company . 264 

White  and  I  were  in  the  insurance  and  brokerage  business  together .  262 

De  Wolf,  J.  H.,  member  of  fourty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  farmer; 

Canton  Station,  Ill.,  testimony  of . . .  335;  383 

A  gentleman  drove  up  to  my  house  the  day  before  I  was  subpoenaed  here, 
and  said  he  was  out  in  interests  of  this  senatorial  committee,  etc.;  he 
said  I  would  be  gotten  into  awful  deep  water  in  this  matter  before  this 

investigation  was  through;  gave  the  name  of  Williams .  384,385,386 

As  to  putting  mortgage  upon  my  land .  338,  339 

Day  Lorimer  was  elected  Holstlaw  said  to  me,  “Are  they  going  to  put 
Lorimer  over  to-day?a’  or  “Are  they  going  to  elect  Lorimer  to-day?” 

I  said  I  didn’t  know .  337 

Did  not  ask  White  or  anyone  else  on  25th  May,  1909,  at  St.  Nicholas  Hotel 
whether  or  not  he  had  been  up  to  the  trough;  do  not  know  what  I  did 

say  now;  if  any  conversation  about  money  it  was  in  a  jocular  way .  337 

Did  not  hear  at  Springfield,  May  24,  25,  or  26  any  proposition  for  a  reward 
if  a  Democratic  member  would  vote  for  Lorimer;  might  have  discussed 
things  in  the  corridor  when  they  were  joking;  nobody  offered  me  any 

money . 343 

Did  not  know  before  house  convened  in  joint  assembly  26th  of  May  that  the 

election  was  coming  off .  338 

Did  not  receive  anything  for  promise  to  vote  or  voting  for  Lorimer .  345 

Do  not  think  I  talked  with  White  on  25th  of  May;  never  discussed  election 

of  Lorimer  with  him .  336 

First  voted  for  Lorimer  day  he  was  elected;  that  was  the  first  day  I  voted 

for  a  Republican .  336 

I  bought  a  piece  of  property  for  $4,600,  and  borrowed,  through  R.  H. 
Henkle,  money  to  pay  for  it;  I  acquired  the  property  on  the  9th  of  August, 

1909;  I  paid  $600,  as  I  recollect,  on  the  property,  and  gave  a  mortgage  on 
15th  day  of  March,  1910,  for  $6,000  (further  details  of  transaction  given).  339, 

340,  341,  342,  343 

I  bought  the  second  piece  of  land  from  Joliet,  the  $4,600 .  341,  342,  343 

I  said  on  several  occasions  I  was  willing  to  vote  for  any  Republican  to  break 

deadlock .  337 

I  told  a  man  downstairs,  think  his  name  was  Dawson,  I  was  going  to  make 

a  correction .  387 

I  voted  for  Lorimer  because  I  wanted  to  break  the  deadlock;  was  a  farmer 

and  expected  to  save  a  pittance .  344 

I  wanted  to  vote  for  Hopkins  and  was  told  Hopkins  would  not  accept 

Democratic  vote .  337,  345 

If  I  used  expression  “I  am  from  Missouri,  and  they  will  have  to  show  me,” 

it  was  in  a  jocular  way,  and  no  significance  in  regard  to  money .  384 

Know  Dug.  Peterson;  he  never  offered  me  anything;  do  not  think  I  told 

English  I  was  offered  money  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  343 

Lorimer  came  to  me  and  said,  “Mr.  De  Wolf,  I  understand  you  are  willing 
to  vote  for  a  Republican  for  Senator.”  I  said,  “I  am;”  he  said,  “I  am 
thinking  about  being  a  candidate.”  I  said,  “If  you  are  I  will  vote  for 
you.”  That  may  have  been  a  day  or  three  days  before  I  voted  for  Lori¬ 
mer  (further  conversation  given) .  344 

Never  told  George  English  I  had  been  approached  to  vote  for  Lorimer  and 
offered  money  if  I  would;  no  recollection  of  discussing  election  of  Lorimer 

with  him .  338 

No  one  ever  called  over  transom  in  St.  Nicholas  Hotel  and  asked  me  to  open 
door  and  offered  me  certain  things  if  I  would  vote  for  Lorimer;  never 

told  anyone  it  occurred .  343,  344 

To  my  best  recollection  never  had  talk  with  Beckemeyer  about  Senator- 

ship  or  Lorimer .  338 

Voted  for  minority  leader  Browne .  336 

Was  not  paid  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer .  338 

Donohue,  Daniel  D.,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat; 

house;  lawyer,  Bloomington,  Ill.,  testimony  of .  516,523 


70924°— S.  Rep.  042,  61-3 - 49 


766 


INDEX. 


Donohue,  Daniel  D. — Continued.  Page. 

As  to  conversation  Groves  said  I  had  with  him,  do  not  remember  having  it; 
may  have  had  it;  never  heard  $1,000  mentioned  up  to  that  time;  there 
was  talk  of  money  having  been  used  generally,  more  after  election  and 

applied  to  other  candidates  than  Lorimer .  523,  524 

Did  not  vote  for  Lorimer .  516' 518 

First  thing  I  heard  at  Springfield  was  Hopkins  was  trying  to  buy  some 
votes;  after  election  of  Lorimer  the  thing  started  that  everything  was  not 

straight . ...... .  52o 

Had  conversation  with  Groves;  he  complained  about  some  member  coming 
to  his  room  some  night  before  Lorimer  election  and  asked  him  to  vote  for 
Lorimer;  think  he  said  something  about  a  consideration,  and  about  hav¬ 
ing  it  published  in  paper;  think  in  reply  to  me  he  said  he  had  no  witness 

(witness  testified  also  to  what  he  told  Groves) .  517 

It  was  Riley  who  approached  me  with  reference  to  voting  for  Lorimer;  a 
number  of  fellows  asked  about  getting  all  Democrats  in  line  for  Lorimer; 

I  said  it  was  bad  politics,  etc . 517 

Never  heard  anybody  had  been  offered  or  paid  anything  for  voting  for 

Lorimer — no  particular  member — only  general  talk .  518 

Some  of  Hopkins  Republicans  said  they  would  vote  for  Stringer  before  they 

would  vote  for  any  other  Republican .  518,  519 

Was  asked  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  nothing  said  with  reference  to  reward  if  I 

did.. . . . .  517,518 

W  as  working  against  election  of  Lorimer  and  for  Stringer .  517 

Doyle,  James  W.,  machinist  and  inspector,  Wabash  Railroad  Co.,  testimony  of.  463 

As  to  when  I  first  told  this  story .  435  455 

Conversation  with  White  took  place  in  May,  1909,  about  18th  or  20th;  first 

conversation  he  engaged  in  he,  I  should  judge,  solicited  a  bribe .  466 

Have  been  connected  with  Wabash  Railroad  about  five  years;  before  that 

worked  for  Illinois  Central  six  or  seven  years .  463 

I  said  to  White,  “I  have  not  got  anything  to  give  you,”  etc .  464,  466,  467 

Last  legislature  I  represented  machinists . ’  .  ’  464 

Member  International  Association  of  Machinists;  no  official  labor  position 

this  year;  was  president  of  the  local  craft  last  year .  463 

Met  White  at  the  legislature  last  session  (details  conversation  with  White 
as  to  labor  legislation,  and  his  saying  “What  do  you  expect  us  fellows 

to  live  on,  wind,  around  here?”) .  464 

White  stepped  up  to  me  and  said,  “I  see  one  of  your  bills  is  on  for  third 
reading  to-day;  you  fellows  are  not  out  of  the  woods  yet;  you  better  get 
busy” . .  464,465 


E. 


Exhibits .  538 

Exhibit  1. — Letter  from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  to  Charles  A.  White,  dated 

Ottawa,  Ill.,  June  9,  1909 .  53 

Exhibit  2. — Letter  from  Browne  to  Friend  Charles,  dated  Ottawa,  Ill., 

June  13,  1909 .  53 

Exhibit  3.— Telegram  from  Robt.  E.  WTilson  to  Chas.  White,  dated  Chicago, 

Ill.,  July  14,  1909 . 56 

Exhibit  4. — Letter  from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  to  Charles  A.  White,  dated 

Ottawa,  Ill.,  July  16,  1909 .  56 

Exhibit  5.— Contract  between  Tribune  Co.  and  Charles  A.  White .  104 

Exhibit  1-A. — Check  drawn  on  First  National  Bank  to  the  order  of  Jno. 

Fey  by  Chas.  A.  White,  dated  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  June  19,  1909 .  179 

Exhibit  2-A. — Check  drawn  on. First  National  Bank  to  the  order  of  Tri 
City  Packing  Co.,  by  Chas.  A.  White,  dated  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  June  19, 

1909. . 179 

Exhibit  3-A. — Check  drawn  on  First  National  Bank  to  the  order  of  J.  H. 

Herron  by  Chas.  A.  White,  dated  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  June  19,  1909 .  179 

Exhibit  4-A. — Check  drawn  on  First  National  Bank  to  the  order  of  Peter  J. 
McGann  by  Chas.  A.  White,  dated  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  June  19,  1909 .  180 


Exhibit  5-A. — Check  drawn  on  First  National  Bank  to  the  order  of  Sub¬ 
urban  Pharmacy  by  Chas.  A.  White,  dated  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  June  19,  1909.  180 

Exhibit  6-A. — Check  drawn  on  First  National  Bank  to  the  order  of  Mc¬ 
Gowan  House  by  Chas.  A.  White,  dated  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  June  19,  1909. . .  180 

Exhibit  7-A. — Check  drawn  on  First  National  Bank  to  the  order  of  Jos. 
Kinlein  by  Chas.  A.  White,  dated  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  June  19,  1909 .  180 


INDEX. 


767 


Exhibits — Continued.  Page- 

Exhibit  1-B. — Bill  for  office  rent  paid  by  C.  A.  White,  dated  East  St. 

Louis,  Ill.,  June  21,  1909 .  181 

Exhibit  2-B. — Bill  against  Johnson  &  White  Kealty  Co.,  dated  May  24, 

1909 . 182 

Exhibit  3-B. — Bill  against  M.  Nat.  Claim  &  Adj.  Co.,  dated  East  St.  Louis, 

April  21,  1909 . 182 

Exhibit  4-B. — Bill  against  Johnson  &  White  Realty  Co.,  dated  East  St. 

Louis,  April  21,  1909  .  182 

Exhibit  5-B. — Bill  against  National  Claim  Adjustment  Co.,  dated  May  24, 

1909 .  183 

Exhibit  1-C. — Hotel  bill  paid  by  Charles  A.  White,  dated  July  5,  1909 .  183 

Exhibit  2-C. — Bill  for  office  rent  paid  by  C.  A.  White,  dated  East  St.  Louis, 

July  7,  1909 . ' . 183 

Exhibit  1-H. — Confession  of  D.  W.  Holstlaw,  relating  to  purchase  of  furni¬ 
ture  for  general  assembly  rooms,  dated  Springfield,  Ill.,  May  28,  1910 -  348 

Exhibit  A. — Letter  from  Charles  White  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  dated  O’Fal¬ 
lon,  Ill.,  July  12,  1909 .  115 

Exhibit  B. — Letter  from  Charles  White  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  dated  O’Fal¬ 
lon,  Ill.,  Sept.  8,  1909 .  117 

Exhibit  C. — Note  of  Charles  A.  White  promising  to  pay  Lee  O’Neill  Browne 

$50,  dated  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  Sept.  8,  1909 .  118 

Exhibit  D. — Letter  from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  to  Friend  Charles,  dated 

Ottawa,  Ill.,  Sept.  9,  1909 .  119 

Exhibit  E. — Telegram  from  Chas.  A.  White  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  dated 

O’Fallon,  Ill.,  Sept.  15,  1909 . . . .  120 

Exhibit  F. — Telegram  from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  to  Charles  A.  White,  dated 

Ottawa,  Ill.,  Sept.  16,  1909 .  120 

Exhibit  G. — Letter  from  Chas.  White  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  not  dated -  120 

Exhibit  H. — Letter  from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  to  Charles  A.  White,  dated 

Ottawa,  III.,  Sept.  23,  1909 .  121 

Exhibit  I. — Draft  for  $50  sent  by  Browne  to  White,  Sept.  23, 1909 .  122 

Exhibit  J. — Letter  from  Charles  White  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  dated  O’  Bal¬ 
lon,  Ill.,  Oct.  1,  1909 .  122 

Exhibit  K. — Note  of  Charles  A.  White  promising  to  pay  Lee  O’Neill  Browne 

$50,  dated  O’Fallon,  Ill.,  Sept.  25,  1909 .  123 

Exhibit  L. — Letter  from  Charles  A.  White  to  Hon.  Wm.  H.  Lorimer,  dated 

O’Fallon,  Ill.,  Oct.  19,  1909 .  123 

Exhibit  M. — Letter  from  Lee  O’NeiU  Browne  to  Friend  Charlie,  dated  Chi¬ 
cago,  Oct.  24,  1909 .  124 

Exhibit  N. — Letter  from  Charles  A.  White  to  Hon.  Wm.  II .  Lorimer,  dated 

O’Fallon,  Ill.,  Dec.  4,  1909 .  125 

Exhibit  O. — Telegram  from  Charles  A.  White  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne,  dated 

Nov.  5,  1909... . - .  126 

Exhibit  P. — Letter  from  Lee  O’Neiil  Browne  to  Charles  A.  White,  dated 

Ottawa,  Ill.,  Nov.  2,  1909 .  126 

Exhibit  Q. — Letter  from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  to  Charles  A.  White,  dated 

Ottawa,  Ill.,  Nov.  6,  1909 .  127 

Exhibit  R. — Telegram  from  James  L.  Monaghan  to  Lee  O’Neill  Browne, 

dated  Chicago,  111.,  Nov.  1 .  127 

Exhibit  S. — Letter  from  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  to  Charles  A.  White,  dated 

Ottawa,  Ill.,  Nov.  2,  1909 .  127 

Exhibit  T. — Letter  from  Chas.  A.  White  to  Hon.  Fred  J.  Kern,  dated 

Springfield,  Ill.,  May  29,  1909 .  128 

Exhibit  1— I,  H.  F.  L. — Telegram  from  M.  S.  Link  to  John  E.  Wayman,  dated 

Mitchell,  Ill.,  May  9,  1909 . -  -  -  -  372 

Exhibits  1-J.  K.  F.  L. — Telegram  from  John  E.  W.  Wayman  to  M.  S.  Link, 
dated  Chicago,  May  9,  1910,  and  telegram  from  M.  S.  Lin.,  to  John  E.  W. 

Wayman,  dated  Mitchell,  Ill.,  May  12,  1910 . . .  372 

Exhibit  1-L.  K.  F.  L. — Letter  from  Frank  Reid  to  M.  S.  Link,  dated 

Chicago,  May  12,  1910 . .  372 

Exhibit  1-M.  K.  F.  L. — Telegram  from  M.  S.  Link  t  J  li  n  ij  *  H  ^ ^  ^  ^  ) 

dated  Mitchell,  111.,  May  13,  1910 . . . . .  373 

Exhibit  1-N.  K.  F.  L. — Letter  from  M.  S.  Linn,  to  John  E.  W.  Wayman, 

dated  Mitchell,  Ill.,  May  12,  1910 .  373 

Exhibit  l-O.  K.  F.  L. — Letter  from  M.  S.  Link  to  John  W.  Wayman,  dated 
Mitchell,  111.,  July  2,  1910 .  373 


768 


INDEX. 


Exhibits— Continued.  PagQ 

Exhibit  1-P.  K.  F.  L—  Letter  from  Bob  to  M.  S.  Link,  dated  Chicago 
June  26,  1909 . . . '  °  ’  374 

Exhibit  1-Q.  K.  F.  L.— Envelope  from  Clerk’s  Office,  House  of  Represent¬ 
atives,  Forty-sixth  General  Assembly,  Illinois .  373 

Exhibit  1-R.  K.  F.  L. — Letter  from  Robert  E.  Wilson  to  H  J  C  Becke- 
meyer,  dated  Chicago,  June  26,  1909 .  402 

Exhibit  1-S.— Deposit  slip  for  account  of  Holstlaw  Bank,  Iuka,  Ill  dated 
June  16,  1909 .  411 

Exhibit  1-T.  K.  F.  L.— Envelope  addressed  to  Mr.  Stermer,  M?r  BrWs 
House,  City,  by  Chas.  A.  White . _  _  &&  413 

Exhibit  1-W.  K.  F.  L.— Testimony  of  W.  H.  Stermer  in  case  of  People  v 

Browne .  *  ^ 

Exhibit  1-X.  K.  F.  L.— Testimony  of  Fred  Zentner  in  case  of  People  v 
Browne . * .  '  ^ 

Exhibit  1-Y.  K.  F.  L.— Letter  from  Chas.  A.  White  to  Stermer,  dated 
Chicago,  Feb.  6,  1910 .  413 

Exhibit  1-Z,  K.  F.  L. — Letter  received  by  Lee  O’Neill  Browne  from  M  S 

Link,  dated  Mitchell,  Ill.,  Sept.  12,  1910 .  617,618 

Exhibit  1-aa,  K.  F.  L. — Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  Forty- 

sixth  General  Assembly,  Illinois,  Jan.  6,  1909 .  v  700 

Exhibit  1-bb,  K.  F.  L.— Journal  of  the  Senate,  Forty-sixth  General  As¬ 
sembly,  Illinois,  Jan.  6,  1909 . 7q3 

G. 

Gloss,  Ella,  wife  of  George  F.  Gloss,  testimony  of .  44g 

As  to  times  when  Sydney  Yarborough  has  been  at  our  house .  449 

Have  known  White  should  judge  three  and  a  half  or  four  years. * .  .  .  .  446 

Have  three  children;  a  boy  was  7  years  old  26th  of  May .  446 

I  testified  in  criminal  court,  this  county,  case  of  People  v.  Browne,  to  same 
facts  I  have  here .  44g 

Know  Sydney  and  Otis  Yarborough;  should  judge  had  known  Sydney 'five 
years;  knew  he  had  been  at  O’Fallon;  he  was  at  our  house  on  Springfield 
Avenue,  Chicago,  night  of  24th  of  May  last  year;  came  at  night  with  my 
husband  and  stayed  all  night . .- .  447 

Never  discussed  this  prior  to  May  of  this  year,  except  with  m'y  husband". ! !  448 

Was  not  indicted  for  Browne  testimony  as  I  know  of .  449 

Yarborough,  Sydney,  came  back  to  our  house  night  of  the  25th;  he  gave  mv 

boy  25  cents  for  a  baseball  mitt;  suppose  a  birthday  present .  447,  448 

Yarborough,  Sydney,  went  from  our  house  on  morning  of  25th  to  Wheaton 
leaving  his  grip  at  our  house;  took  it  away  night  of  the  25th,  when  he  said 
he  was  going  to  Springfield,  over  the  Illinois  Central;  said  he  was  trav¬ 
eling  on  Charlie  White’s  pass .  44g 

Gloss,  George  F. ,  motorman,  Chicago,  Ill. ,  testimony  of _ .*  .*  .*  .* .' "  * ."  .*  .*  ’  *  434 

As  to  ray  getting  bail;  Tom  Brady  went  over  to  the  criminal  court  with  me 
at  the  direction  of  my  lawyer .  442  443 

/*,  1  I  T,  •  -1  •  .  ,  .  ^  coupon  No.  28,  pass  i909,  Illinois 

Central  Railway,  is  the  one  he  had . • .  439  449  444 

Did  not  see  White  on  24th,  25th,  or  26th  of  May . !!!!!!!!.*!!.’../.’.  ’443 

First  knew  White  about  five  years  ago;  saw  him  between  6th  and  11th  of 
January  last  at  O  Fallon,  East  St.  Louis,  and  Collinsville;  White  was 

street-car  conductor  at  that  time .  435 

Had  conversation  with  White  in  August,  1909,  and  talked  with  him  about 
election  of  Lorimer;  conversation  detailed;  White  did  not  indicate 
whether  he  had  got  anything  for  voting  for  Lorimer,  and  he  never  told  me 

that  he  did  or  didn’t .  445  443 

Had  conversation  with  White  on  23d  of  May, *i909*  (conversation  "given  ’ 
in  detail) .  0  444  445 

Met  Sydney  Yarborough  24th  of  May,  1909,  somewhere  9*  or  16  o’clock  at  ’ 
night;  he  went  home  on  my  car  and  stayed  at  mv  house  in  this  city;  he 
stayed  all  night  and  came  back  the  evening  of  the  25th;  said  he  was 

going  to  the  Illinois  Central  depot,  going  to  Springfield .  437, 438,  439,  443 

Met  White  at  Briggs  House  July  or  August;  I  said  to  him,  “I  see  you 
voted  for  Lorimer;  how  did  it  happen?”  White  replied,  “I  am  low 
down  on  the  list,  and  when  they  came  to  my  name  was  so  excited  that  I 
hallooed  out  ‘Lorimer!’ ”  (further  conversation  with  White  de- 
tailed) .  435,436 


INDEX. 


769 

Page, 

State  Street  I  said,  in  substance,  “White,  it  would  seem  you  will  soon 
elect  a  man  down  there.  Who  do  you  think  it  will  be?”  White  re¬ 
sponded,  “I  don’t  know;  what  do  you  think  about  this  man  Lorimer?” 

I  said,  “  I  do  not  know  personally,  but  that  the  boys  told  me  he  is  a  good 

friend  of  street-car  men;  has  done  them  many  a  favor,”  etc .  435,  445 

Never  changed  my  testimony  in  case  of  People  v.  Browne .  444 

Never  saw  Sydney  or  Otis  Yarborough  sign  the  name  of  Charles  A.  White..  444 
Saw  White  and  Sydney  and  Otis  Yarborough  on  Sunday  previous  to  Lori- 
mer’s  election,  on  23d  of  May,  1909,  at  Briggs  House;  as  to  where  they 

went . 441 

Was  indicted  for  perjury  after  I  testified  in  Browne  case .  442 

Was  witness  in  last  trial  of  People  v.  Browne  here;  was  on  stand,  I  think, 
four  times;  my  wife  testified  at  that  trial  in  relation  to  these  matters. .  441,  442 
Wife’s  name  Ella;  three  children;  one  was  7  the  26th  day  of  last  May. . . .  434 

Yarborough  gave  my  boy  25  cents  to  get  a  ball  mitt  for  his  birthday  of  the 

26  th . 439 

Yarborough,  on  the  25th  of  May,  in  my  kitchen,  said  his  railroad  fare  didn’t 

cost  him  anything;  that  he  was  riding  on  White’s  pass .  439 

Gray,  James  J.,  member  of  general  assembly,  Democrat,  condensed  milk; 

Belle  Isle,  Ill.;  testimony  of .  393 

Have  known  Beckemeyer  about  all  my  life .  393 

Latter  part  of  July,  1909,  or  1st  of  August,  Beckemeyer  came  into  our  place 
of  business  and  asked  me  to  go  to  bank  and  identify  him;  said  he  wanted 


Griffin,  John,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house;  team¬ 
ing;  Chicago,  Ill.;  testimony  of .  572 


Asked  Terrill  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  think  about  second  night  before  Lorimer 
was  elected,  right  across  corner  from  St.  Nicholas  Hotel;  I  said,  “Why 
don’t  you  vote  for  Lorimer  now;  you  are  a  Republican  and  it  will  make 

you  strong  in  your  town,”  etc .  576 

Asked  Terrill  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  never  said  to  him  there  would  be  $1,000 

in  it  or  any  sum,  nor  to  anybody  else .  577 

Browne  never  asked  me  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  no  one  else  asked  me  to .  575 

Did  not  discuss  with  Terrill  anything  about  money;  never  heard  about 
money  for  Senator  during  session;  there  was  some  talk  afterwards;  did 

not  hear  $1,000  named;  I  got  no  money .  576,577- 

Did  not  tell  Terrill  Lorimer  was  to  be  elected  next  day,  or  anyone  else. . .  578 

Did  not  want  to  vote  for  Lorimer  until  I  thought  my  vote  would  count. . .  575 

Guess  greater  number  of  Democrats  voting  for  Lorimer  were  from  Chicago; 


Might  have  told  half  a  dozen  I  would  vote  for  Lorimer  (names  some) .  575 

Might  have  told  Wilson  I  was  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  578 

Never  got  anything  for  voting  for  Lorimer;  do  not  know  anybody  who  did.  578 
Right  after  election  there  were  rumors  around  there  some  fellows  had  got 

some  money .  577 

Some  newspaper  man  asked  me  yesterday  about  this;  I  made  same  state¬ 
ment  I  made  here .  578 

Tippit,  leader  of  the  other  Democratic  faction,  I  believe,  voted  for  Lorimer.  579 

Told  Terrill  I  was  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  576 

Voted  for  Lorimer  morning  he  was  nominated;  guess  that  was  only  time 
any  Democrat  voted  for  him ;  would  have  voted  for  him  at  any  time. . . .  574 

Voted  for  Stringer  and  think  for  Harrison .  574 

Was  member  of  Browne  faction .  573 

Wilson  did  not  ask  me  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  I  did  not  ask  him  to  vote  for 

Lorimer;  I  asked  Terrill  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  576 

Groves,  Jacob,  member  of  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house;  Camp  Point, 


As  to  close  friends  of  Gov.  Deneen  voting  for  Lorimer .  418 

As  to  whether  I  am  friendly  to  Lorimer .  461 

Conversation  had  with  Shaw  was  on  floor  of  house,  probably  day  Lorimer 
was  elected  or  day  following;  Shaw  said,  “For  the  members  that  would 
vote  for  Lorimer  they  got  $1,000.”  Talked  this  over  with  O’Laughlin 


Did  not  vote  for  Lorimer .  414 


770 


INDEX. 


Groves,  Jacob — Continued.  Page- 

I  said  to  Patterson,  “  There  isn’t  enough  money  in  Springfield  to  hire  me  to 

vote  for  Bill  Lorimer  ” .  415  421 

Made  a  speech  in  house  when  it  came  to  roll  call  and  before  votes  all  cast. .  '  421 

Neither  Donohue,  Terrill,  nor  Shaw  told  me  they  had  received  monev 
for  voting  for  Lorimer;  Terrill  said  he  could  get  something;  said  he  could 

have  earned  $1,000  if  he  would  vote  for  Lorimer .  462  507  508 

Nixon,  sergeant  at  arms  of  this  committee,  introduced  O’Laughlin  to  me;  ’ 


conversation  given. 


„  . .  41g  419  420 

Patterson.  Douglas,  Democratic  ex-member  of  legislature,  approached 
me  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  conversation  given;  others  spoke  to  me  in  regard 
to  the  matter  subsequent  to  the  election,  including  Terrill,  Shaw,  and 

Donohue.  .  . 414,  415,  416,  417,  418,  420,  421 

Shaw  was  not  present  when  I  had  conversation  with  Terrill,  I  think  507 

Short,  time  after  conversation  with  Shaw  I  was  talking  to  Donohue  regard¬ 
ing  Lonmer’s  election  and  I  told  him  Shaw  stated^he  understood  There 
was  $1,000  given  to  Democrats  voting  for  Lorimer;  Donohue  stated  he 

supposed  it  would  be  more  than  that,  etc .  599 

Talked  with  John  C.  O’Laughlin,  of  the  Tribune,  to-day;"  conversation 

g!yen . .  418,419 

Terrill  told  me  he  got  $1,000  for  voting  for  Lorimer  (witness  corrects  this  on 
page  460.  and  testifies  Terrill  said,  “There  was  $1,000  in  sight  ”  or 

something  like,  if  I  would  vote  for  Lorimer) . .  416,  460 

Thought  O’Laughlin  was  one  of  the  attorneys  here .  420 

Told  the  State  s  attorney  of  my  county  as  to  who  approached  me  419 

Was  in  Springfield  May,  1909,  and  during  the  legislature . 414 

Was  in  the  house  when  vote  was  taken  for  Lorimer .  418 


H. 


Holstlaw,  D.  W.,  member  of  general  assembly;  Democrat,  house;  farmer  and 

stock  buyer;  Iuka,  Ill.,  testimony  of .  196  683 

After  I  received  the  first  sum  of  money  from  Broderick,  do  not  think  we  ’ 
said  a  v  ord,  but  at  that  time  I  was  here  he  said  there  would  be  some  more 
coming,  etc .  694 

As  to  the  dates  when  money  was  paid  to  me  bv  Broderick  and  disposal  of 

same . . .  201 

As  to  what  induced  me  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  202 

As  to  what  occurred  when  Broderick  paid  me  $2,500,  and  when  he  paid  me 

the  $700. . .  . # .  684,  685,  686,  687 

At  time  Lrodenck  gave  me  the  $2,500  he  said  there  would  be  something 
more  coming  to  me  later;  went  there  again,  judge  six  weeks  later,  and 
got  the  money  same  place  I  got  the  other  money;  details  in  regard  to 

getting  second  money .  689,  690,  691,  693 

Banks  in  which  I  was  interested .  200 

Beaver.  B.  N.,  president  village  board  of  Iuka,  well  acquainted  with;  do 
not  remember  telling  him  couldn  t  vote  for  Hopkins  as  was  goin°r  to  vote 
for  Lorimer  if  name  presented . T . . .? .  207 

Became  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  elected  to  the  senate  as 
a  Democrat,  1908 .  497 

Before  conversation  with  Broderick  night  before  Lorimer  was  elected, 
think  I  told  Lewis  if  opportunity  presented  would  vote  for  Lorimer,  as 

we  couldn’t  elect  a  Democrat .  207 

Bell,  J.  J.,  of  Salem,  vice  president  of  bank,  I  know;  remember  telling 
him  thought  I  would  vote  for  some  good  Republican;  do  not  remember 

I  said  Lorimer .  205 

Broderick  afterwards  paid  me  $/00;  don’t  know  what  for;  he  simply  said 
there  was  that  much  coming  to  me;  think  I  deposited  the  money  in  bank 

at  home .  200,  692 

Broderick  told  me  that  he  would  give  me  the  $2,500 .  688 

Broderick’s  saloon,  Chicago;  details  of  conversation  at .  210 

Broderick’s  saloon,  Chicago;  was  in  there  twice;  first  was  16th  of  June, 

then  m  July  some  time . . . .  207  688 

Broderick’s  saloon,  Chicago;  went  to,  at  the  time  I  received  the  $2,500  in 
response  to  a  letter  which  he  wrote  me;  perhaps  I  have  letter  at  home,  but 

not  here;  further  statement  as  to  contents  and  date  of  letter .  209, 

210,  684,  685,  686,  687 


INDEX. 


771 


208 

692 

693 


Holstlaw,  D.  W.— Continued.  .  .  _  .  Page' 

Can  not  find  letter  from  Broderick;  think  it  was  received  about  a  week 

before  I  came  up  here,  and  think  that  was  16th  of  June .  683,  693 

Deposit  slip  marked  “Exhibit  1-S”  10-3-10;  that  is  the  deposit  I  made  in 
State  Bank  of  Chicago  of  $2,500;  think  I  saw  Broderick  on  that  same  day; 

went  from  Broderick’s  saloon  to  bank . *  -  683,  684 

Did  not  know  if  anyone  was  being  paid  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  as  to  who  first 

approached  me  with  respect  to  voting  for  Lorimer . 

Did  not  deposit  the  $700  that  I  got  on  the  second  occasion . . 

Do  not  know  what  the  second  sum  received  from  Broderick  was  for . 

Don’t  knowhow  I  happened  to  go  back  to  Chicago;  when  I  got  back  I  saw 

Broderick  again . . .  684 

First  time  went  to  Broderick’s  saloon  I  went  expecting  to  receive  some¬ 
thing  from  Broderick .  689 

I  was  indicted  and  the  indictment  was  quashed .  fl° 

I  was  not  indicted  for  voting  for  Lorimer . . . . . ;  -  220 

Immediately  after  my  indictment  and  when  I  signed  the  statement  I  was  in 

custody  of  an  officer . - — . - . - .  222 

Indictment  against  me  was  dismissed  after  I  signed  the  paper,  and  on  same 

day  - . . - .  221 

Indictment  against  Senator  Broderick  is  still  pending  at  Sangamon  County, 

Springfield,  and  I  am  a  witness  there . -  -  -  -  -  -  -  220 

Letter  received  from  Broderick  stated,  as  I  remember,  “Meet  me  m  Chi¬ 
cago  some  time  the  next  week  ” ;  I  met  him  in  Chicago  the  next  week . . .  684 

Never  mentioned  the  receipt  of  letter  from  Broderick  until  I  testified  before 

this  committee . - . -  -  -  - -  692 

Night  before  vote  for  Lorimer  was  taken  Broderick  said  to  me:  We  are 
going  to  elect  Lorimer  to-morrow,  aren’t  we?”  I  said,  “Tes;  ^thought 
we  were”;  and  I  intended  to  vote  for  him.  He  said:  There  is  $2,500 

for  you”;  I  voted  for  him  the  next  day .  197, 198, 199,  202,  208,  209 

No  conversation  when  I  received  $2,500  from  Broderick;  he  simply  said, 

“Here  is  that  money”;  about  June  16,  if  I  remember  right;  put  the 

money  in  State  Bank  of  Chicago . .  199,  201,  202,  691 

Paper  shown  me  yesterday  I  signed  because  it  was  a  statement  I  made,  and 

it  was  true;  language  was  formulated  by  the  lawyers . -  -  -  -  -  220 

Paper  shown  me  yesterday  was  drawn  by  Fitzgerald,  a  lawyer,  and  his 

partner,  Gillespie,  of  Springfield  (circumstances  of  drawing  of  paper). . .  _216, 

217, 218 

Parties  who  asked  me  to  sign  the  paper  said  if  I  testified  to  the  truth  on 
the  Lorimer  vote  and  furniture  vote  indictment  would  be  quashed;  then 

went  back  before  grand  jury . - .  218 

Prior  to  talk  with  Broderick,  May  25,  had  not  voted  for  Lorimer .  200 

Some  two  or  three  days  before  conversation  with  Broderick  I  intended  to 

vote  for  Lorimer . -  - .  198 

Statement  (confession  marked  “Exhibit  1  H ’’) . -  848 

Statement  signed  “D.  W.  H.”  is  document  signed  by  me  May  28  or  29;  I 

understood  the  indictment  was  to  be  dismissed  if  I  signed  this  paper. . . .  221,  222 
Supposed  Broderick  was  paying  me  money  because  he  had  told  me  he 

would  give  to  me  after  my  saying  I  was  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  200,  688 

The  $2,500  and  the  $700  were  paid  in  cash .  201 

Think  I  told  some  that  I  was  going  to  vote  for  some  Republican  if  oppor¬ 
tunity  presented;  think  I  told  some  that  I  would  vote  for  Lorimer . 

Think  Mr.  Broderick  fixed  the  time  for  me  to  come  to  his  saloon;  think  he 

wrote  to  me . . . -  -  -  - . -  — 

Told  several  I  was  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  think  I  talked  with  members 

of  legislature  about  it .  265,  206 

Utterbach,  J.  C.,  editor  of  Marion  County  Republican,  Salem,  111.,  I  know; 
do  not  remember  whether  I  had  conversation  with  him  before  Lorimer 
elected,  but  I  told  another  editor,  Lewis,  down  there  I  intended  to  vote 

for  Lorimer . % . ; . -  - .  264 

Was  in  attendance  at  joint  session  during  voting  for  United  States  Senator; 

voted  for  Lorimer  May  26,  1909 . : . .  197,  209 

Was  in  banking  business  about  three  years  before  entering  legislature .  197 

Was  in  Broderick’s  place,  first  visit,  16th  of  June  very  short  time;  took  no 

liquor;  think  I  took  drink  of  blackberry  wine . -  -  -  684 

Was  summoned  as  witness  before  grand  jury  of  Sangamon  County,  Spring- 

field,  Ill.;  matter  not  relating  to  election  of  United  States  Senator .  213 


208 

201 


772 


INDEX. 


Holt  slaw,  D.  W.— Continued. 

the  Srand  jury,  think,  about  the  28th  of  May,  this  year-  was  ^ 
indicted  for  perjury  same  day .  y  _ 

s{f  tement  shown  me  dated  May  28,  1910,  ha^  my' signature-*  what 
tt  i  ^  8aid  there  is  the  same  as  here  as  well  as  I  can  remember  it  ’  ono  ooo 
Ho  stiaw  testimony  referred  to,  by  (Report,  13).  rememDer  .  202,  203 

Htimonv  ofG'’  SGCretary  to  chief  clerk  of  President  of  the  Illinois  Central,  tes- 

As  to  card  sent  in  by  White* and  ‘pass  book  and  coupon  book . fl 

A^t£  i7°Wmg  who  has  rldden  011  [t'>  Chicago  to  Springfield  on  May 

Have  more  or  less  to  do  with  passes;  when  a  member  of'leg'islatuVe  wants'  a  458 

pass  he  makes  written  request  on  the  district  attorney,  who  sends  it  to 

passes^6’  PaSS  13  iSSUed  (fUrth6r  te3tim0ny  38  ‘o' process  o?1ssuin^ 

Kw°oYi?eT5  ®l0S9  b  sight' oniy;  wm  present  in' criminal  court  when  hf7’ 458 
was  handed  coupons  to  pick  out  one  signed  by  Sydney  Yarborough,  etc.  459 

I. 

*HeflyT  directed  t0  Question  whether  sufficient  number  were 
bnbed  to  vote  tor  Lonmer  to  render  election  invalid  (Report  3) 

(Report,’ °3).  reS°luti°n  for’  submitted  to  Senate  by  Lorimer  May  28,  1910 


“Jackpot:  ” 
Broderick. 
Link . 


568 


White. 


.  307,308 


222 


,224 


“Jack  pot,”  evidence  objected  'to  (Han^yj;  "V"  *l[  ^  ?°;  ^ 

K. 

KCoPS’LLhSXumoCny1rTme:.I!^’.m  ™  WOrk“g  for  Grand  deader 

Wdiite  deposited  money  m  the  Grand  Leader,  latter  part  of  June,  I  suppose 
(circumstances  detailed;  saw  some  fifty  and  some  twenty  dollar bills' 
did  not  see  denommation  of  each  bill) . .  _  223 

Lake  trips:  ^ 

®£he6 .  601,  602,  613,  620,  644,  645 

Zentner .  .  188,  189 

^Bame^  preAden t^eagUe  °f  ^  of  Illinois,  letters  and  affidavit  of  C.  W.  539 

Legislature:  . . .  3 

Adjourned,  after  May  26,  1909,  on  June  4  (Hanecy)  r9 

Has  153  members  in  house  and  51  in  Senate  (White). .  .*.*.*.'.  1 '  oZ 

Journals  of,  to  be  considered  as  in  evidence  q7 

Names  of  members  of,  to  be  put  in  record. .  . 

““  record  4  covering  period  of  contest  for  election  of  United  States 
L  testimony^  member  of  general  assembly,  Democrat,"  house;' Mitchell,'  i’ll.',  ’ 

A  Prif0rKt0-5r0Wne  fial  Peckemeyer  had  conversation  with  me*  in' '  ’  °88 

criminal  court  building,  when  he  said,  “Our  testimony  will  be  alike  ” 

etc  and  I  said,  No,  Beck,  I  have  got  the  best  of  you;  I  promised  to 
vote  for  Lorimer  eight  or  ten  days  before  Browne  spoke  to  me  about  it” 
(further  conversation) .  o0f) 

After  adjournment  of  forty-fifth  legislature  no  money  came  to  me.'.!!!!”!  305 
After  adjournment  of  legislature  I  saw  Robert  E.  Wilson  some  time  in  July "  280 
After  I  was  before  first  grand  jury  and  stated  I  never  got  any  money  & 

voting  for  Lorimer,  I  was  indicted  for  perjury . .  Y  294  29^ 

After  I  was  indicted  for  perjury  the  assistant  State’s  attorney  and*  the  State’s  ’  ~ 

feSnfh^  f  kePtfta^7ntmg  “e  by  flaunting  the  indictment  in  my  face; 
details  of  statement  ot  W  ayman  s  conversation .  295 


INDEX. 


773 


Link,  Michael — Continued.  Page. 

After  I  went  before  grand  jury  last  time  and  told  what  Wayman  asked  me 
to  he  took  me  before  Judge  McSurely  and  said,  “Link  has  made  a  clean 
breast  of  whole  affair;  ”  Wayman  had  indictment  against  me  quashed. .  298,  299 

After  indicted  I  stated  I  did  meet  Wilson .  302 

After  Wayman  took  me  before  Judge  McSurely  I  was  allowed  to  go  home; 
following  week  I  was  put  in  custody  of  another  officer;  a  subpoena  was 

served  on  me  to  go  to  Springfield .  299 

As  to  being  asked  if  Browne  paid  me  $1,000 .  282 

As  to  my  being  ordered  into  custody. . ._ .  304 

As  to  my  needing  money  for  my  campaign .  306 

As  to  officers  accompanying  witness . .  292,  293,  294 

As  to  Tierney  and  White  being  at  the  railroad  station  making  inquiry  in 

regard  to  this  matter .  282 

As  to  what  took  place  at  Southern  Hotel,  including  Wilson’s  handing  me 

a  package;  package  Wilson  handed  me  contained  $900  .  284 

As  to  whether  Wayman  or  assistants  asked  me  to  tell  untruth .  302,  303 

As  to  why  I  did  not  vote  for  Lorimer  when  his  name  was  first  suggested  as  a 

candidate .  285 

Attorney  Reid  met  me  at  Springfield  to  advise  and  represent  me  there. ...  300 

Before  grand  jury  first  time  I  kept  saying  I  did  not  remember  till  Wayman 

wrapped  me  around  his  finger . - .  302 

Before  grand  jury  first  time  question  was  whether  I  had  met  Wilson;  I 

denied  it;  guess  it  was  a  falsehood,  but  I  did  not  remember .  302,  303 

Before  grand  jury  I  denied  meeting  parties  in  St.  Louis;  I  didn’t  remember 

of  meeting  them . - . , .  291 

By  Wayman’ s  advice  I  refused  to  answer  questions  before  grand  jury  at 

Springfield . - . .  299 

Conversation  between  me  and  Browne  as  to  voting  for  Lorimer .  278 

Conversation  held  with  Wayman  as  to  testifying  at  Springfield . .  300 

Delivered  sworn  statement  here  in  Chicago  to  contradict  falsehoods  Tribune 

printed  about  me .  310,  311 

Did  not  discuss  with  Nagel  about  voting  for  Lorimer.  . . . .  280 

Did  not  make  statement  to  Inter-Ocean  representative  I  had  promised 

Nodlier  and  Magee  to  vote  for  Lorimer . -  - .  311 

Did  not  receive  any  money  or  thing  from  anybody  on  condition  that  I  was 

to  vote  for  Lorimer  for  Senator,  or  because  I  had  voted  for  him . .  301 

Did  not  tell  grand  jury  I  had  received  the  money  or  any  part  of  it  for  voting 

for  Lorimer  for  Senator . . . : .  298 

Did  not  to  my  knowledge  prior  to  appearance  before  grand  jury  disclose 

that  I  had  received  $900 . # . - .  284,  285 

Did  not,  to  my  recollection,  have  any  talk  with  anyone  in  Springfield  about 
26th  of  May,  1909,  with  reference  to  voting  for  Lorimer  other  than  Lori¬ 
mer  and  Browne . . 

Do  not  remember  conversing  with  Browne  respecting  voting  for  Lorimer 
except  occasion  detailed;  he  complimented  me  on  being  Democrat;  I 

told  him  I  had  beaten  him,  etc . . . 

Erbstein  was  young  lawyer  who  came  to  Morrison  House . 

Had  no  direct  information  as  to  funds  to  be  distributed;  it  was  removed; 

called  “jack  pot” . * . : .  307,308 

Had  no  knowledge  that  anyone  else  was  paid  any  money;  never  discussed 

it  with  anyone .  286 

Heard  rumor  on  26th  of  May,  1909,  “To-day  is  the  day  that  Lorimer  is  going 

to  be  elected,”  or  “We  are  all  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer” .  287 

I  did  not  sell  my  vote;  I  personally  promised  it  to  Lorimer .  287 

I  never  told  anybody  that  I  voted  for  Lorimer  for  a  money  or  any  other 

consideration . . - . -  302 

I  testified  before  the  Cook  County  grand  jury  in  May,  and  in  the  first  trial  of 
Browne  in  June,  and  in  the  second  trial  of  Browne  in  July  or  August. .  281,  282 

I  testified  before  the  grand  jury . . .  279 

I  was  told  night  I  was  in  custody  of  an  officer  that  I  had  been  indicted  for 

perjury;  think  Wayman  told  me  that . .  297 

I  wrote  Wayman  that  I  would  not  submit  to  being  in  custody  all  the  time; 

that  I  was  not  a  criminal,  etc . - .  299 

In  grand  jury  room  was  examined  by  Wayman;  he  asked  if  I  voted  for 
Lorimer,  and  I  told  him,  “Certainly;  I  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer,  and 
was  proud  of  it;”  he  asked  me  if  I  had  been  paid  anything  for  voting 
for  Lorimer,  and  I  absolutely  denied  it .  290,291 


280 


306 

303 


774 


INDEX. 


Page. 


278 

286 


279 


Link,  Michael — Continued. 

Lenager  and  Nodlier  took  me  up  to  Lorimer’s  and  I  had  conversation  with 

mm,  with  reference  to  voting  for  him,  in  their  presence .  280  310 

Lonmer  asked  me  whether  I  had  any  influence  with  Browne;  I  told  him  ’ 

1  didn  t  think  I  would  have . 

Made  up  my  mind  to  vote  for  Lorimer  in  March,  1909*  provided  we  couldn’t 
GiGC c  uemocrat. 

Made  written  statement  as  to  'facts  concerning  which*  am  now  testifying 
and  swore  to  it;  delivered  it  to  Ward,  Lorimer’s  secretary,  three  days  after 
I  returned  home  after  going  through  the  third  degree  here  in  Chicago 
Meeting  of  Browne  m  Southern  Hotel;  nothing  said  as  to  why  he  was  giving 

me  money;  supposed  for  campaign  purposes .  306  S07 

Met  Hanecy  in  forty-fifth  general  assembly  at  Springfield  ’279 

Never  discussed  with  Joe  Clark,  I  believe,  about  not  promising  to  vote 

tor  Lorimer  until  I  was  given  to  understand  I  was  to  receive  $1,000 _  287 

Never  saw  Judge  Hanecy  to  talk  to  him  until  this  morning,  when  I  told 
you  1  was  a  member  of  the  forty-fifth  general  assembly,  when  you  made 
a  speech  on  the  constitutionality  of  a  certain  act  oqc 

N ot  surprised  at  receiving  $900  and  $1,000 . 307 

Officer  Oake  didn’t  allow  me  to  telephone  to  friends;  other  officers  were 

armed  and  took  out  revolver  and  billy  so  I  could  see  them .  292 

Officer  O  Keefe  said,  “Link,  I  wouldn’t  stand  by  the  other' fellows;* I 
would  stand  by  YVayman,”  etc.  9’Keefe  took  me  back  to  State’s  attor¬ 
ney  s  office  next  morning;  Detective  Maguire  was  present  nearly  everv 
time  1  met  vYayman,  and  he  tried  to  put  words  in  my  mouth  (conver¬ 
sation  given) . ; _  v  296 

Only  reason  for  voting  for  Lorimer  was  his  views  on  the  deep  waterways 

proposition .  285  286  301 

Reasons  for  concealing  receipt  of  $900  and  $i,666  when"  first 'before  grand"  ’ 

J  .  QQe: 

Reasons  why  I  voted  for  Lorimer .  .  301 . 

Recalled  to  correct  testimony  as  to  what  took  place  before  first  grand  jury  388 

Saw  Judge  Hanecy  this  morning;  did  not  discuss  with  him  subject-matter 
of  this  testimony . 

Some  conv  ersation  with  Turner  along  the  line  of  my  voting  for  Lorimer 
but  I  thought  he  was  an  impostor;  I  was  then  summoned  to - - 


279 


here;  I  went  to  the  Morrison  Hotel;  then  to  State  attorney’s  office .  289  290 

borne  10  days  prior  to  his  election  I  promised  Lorimer  my  vote .  *  278 

Some  time  in  June  saw  Browne  at  Southern  Hotel;  message  told  me*  to 
meet  him  at  Southern  Hotel  (details  of  conversation  with  Browne  at 
bouthern  Hotel);  Browne  handed  me  some  money  and  said  “Here  is  a 

package  for  you”;  amount  was  $1,000 . ’  280  981 

The  $1,000  and  $900  *is  all  the  money  I  ever  received  in  connection  with 

legislative  matters  outside  of  salary .  3Q5 

Think  Arnold  told  me  that  I  had  better  tell  what  I  knew  or  that  I  would 

go  to  the  penitentiary  (other  conversation  given) .  296 

Think  it  was  not  as  early  as  February  or  March  that  Turner,  the  detective 
and  \\  hite  came  to  see  me;  presume  in  April;  White  didn’t  come  but 
once;  turner  was  there  the  second  time,  and  said  he  represented  Gov. 

j-/ GiiBon .  289 

uas  O  Keefe  who  had  charge  of  me  when  some  young  lawyer  said, 

VY  hat  are  you  holdmg  this  man  for?  ” . .  T . . .  294 

Voted  for  Lorimer  26th  of  May,  1909,  for  the  first  time .  278 

YVas  put  m  custody  of  Officer  O’Keefe  when  I  left  State’s  attorney;  'it*  was  he 

who  took  his  revolver  and  billy  out  and  put  them  on  the  table .  295 

v\  as  subpoenaed  here  as  a  witness  before  grand  jury . [  289 

a}  man  pictured  it  very  strenuously  between  the  penitentiary  and  mv 
home  (conversation  given) .  o97 

Wayman  said  I  would  have  to  give  a  bond,  and  it  was  $15,666,  and  they 
made  it  $5, 000 . .  ’  J  298 

YVayman  said  if  I  would  go  before  grand  jury  and  make  an  acknowledg¬ 
ment  I  had  received  $1,000  from  Browne  that  I  could  go  home  a  free 
man,  etc . 

Y\ayman  told  me  if  I  would  go  before  grand  jury  and  tell  what  he  wanted 
me  to  he  would  nolle  pros.,  etc.;  I  said,  in  substance,  “  I  will  go  before 
grand  jury  and  lie  if  I  have  to,  but  I  don’t  want  to”;  following  day  I 
went  with  \Yayman  before  grand  jury  and  said  that  I  received  $1,000 


297 


from  Browne  and  $900  through  Wilson. 


298 


INDEX. 


775 


Link,  Michael — Continued.  Page; 

Went  before  grand  jury  to  clear  myself .  302 

Went  to  St.  Louis  on  invitation  to  be  at  Southern  Hotel,  either  from  Wilson, 
or  I  don’t  know  who;  when  I  got  there  met  Wilson;  it  was  in  July;  there 
saw  Shephard,  Clark,  and  Luke  (now  dead)  and  White;  Beckemeyer 

was  not  there  on  that  occasion .  283,  284 

When  anybody,  for  political  or  other  reasons,  wants  two  or  three  persons 

to  get  together  for  any  purpose,  they  meet  at  St.  Louis .  288 

When  Browne  handed  me  $1,000  he  said  nothing  about  my  voting  for 

Lorimer;  Lorimer’s  name  not  used  (testifies  what  took  place) .  308,  309 

When  I  got  $1,000,  do  not  remember  whether  I  counted  it;  did  afterwards. .  309 

When  I  left  grand-jury  room  was  put  in  custody  of  an  officer;  O’Keefe  was 

with  me  most  of  the  time;  Oake  took  charge  of  me  at  the  time .  291 

When  I  met  Wilson  in  St.  Louis  and  he  gave  me  $900  he  did  not  tell  why. .  307 

When  I  went  before  grand  jury  second  time  I  answered  I  got  $1,000  from 

Browne  and  $900  from  Wilson . . . . .  -  304 

When  I  went  to  state’s  attorney’s  office  I  saw  one  of  the  assistants,  think 

Marshall  (details  of  conversation  with  Marshall) .  290 

When  I  wrote  Wayman,  the  officer  was  withdrawn . .  304 

When  Wayman  first  asked  me  if  I  received  money  from  Browne  I  denied 

it;  reasons .  304 

When  Wilson  handed  me  $900,  he  said  something  similar  to  what  Browne 
said,  “This  is  for  you,  ”  etc.  (testifies  what  took  place) .  309 

Link,  testimony  reviewed  by  (Report,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11). 

List  of  membership  of  house,  with  political  affiliations  of  each  member;  also  list 
of  senators,  together  with  their  affiliations,  marked  “Exhibit  1-aa.  K. 

F.  L.” .  700,701,702,703,704 

Lorimer,  counsel  for  Tribune  did  not  expect  to  connect,  with  acts  of  bribery 
(Report,  2). 

Lorimer  elected  Senator  26th  of  May,  1909,  receiving  108  votes  out  of  202;  Hop¬ 
kins  received  70  votes;  Stringer  received  24  votes  (Report,  1,  2). 

Lorimer,  if  admitted  that  four  were  bribed,  he  still  had  a  majority  of  votes  cast 
and  election  was  valid  (Report,  14). 

Lorimer,  letter  to,  stating  I  have  been  offered  a  sum  sufficient  to  value  manu¬ 
script  at  $2.50  a  word,  not  true  (White) .  154 

Lorimer,  majority  in  joint  assembly  14  (Report,  13). 

Lorimer  neither  charged  nor  shown  to  have  bribed  or  corrupted  any  member  or 
to  have  knowledge  of  any  bribery  or  corruption  (Hey burn;  Report,  17). 

Lorimer,  no  other  person  has  claimed  right  to  hold  the  office  or  to  have  been 
elected  (Heyburn;  Report,  15). 

Lorimer  not  connected  with  act  of  bribery  (Austrian) .  66,  80 

Lorimer,  title  to  seat  in  Senate  not  shown  to  be  invalid  by  use  or  employment 
of  corrupt  methods  or  practices,  signed  by  10  members  of  committee  in 
(Report,  15). 

Luke,  Mrs.  Charles  S.,  testimony  of . . : . .  494 

After  receiving  telegram  husband  went  to  St.  Louis;  after  his  return  he  did 
not  show  me  any  amount  of  money;  before  he  went  to  St.  Louis  I  saw 

$950  in  his  possession;  do  not  know  where  he  had  been .  495 

After  returning  home  husband  received  a  telegram  from  Wilson;  he  read 

it  to  me .  49^ 

Husband  and  I  did  not  discuss  the  $950 . - . # .  495 

Husband  was  a  member  of  Illinois  general  assembly  in  1909;  he  died  21st 

of  February,  1910 . . . . .  494>  49^ 

Husband  was  in  attendance  at  legislature  at  time  of  election  of  Senator, 

and  returned  to  Nashville  after  adjournment  of  legislature,  in  June,  1909.  495 

I  have  been  sick;  a  number  of  persons  followed  me  up  trying  to  get  me  to 
tell  some  story  about  my  husband;  recognize  gentleman  [indicating 
Mr.  John  C.  O’Laughlin]  as  one  who  talked  to  me  a  few  minutes  ago. . . .  496 

O’Laughlin  asked  me  to  tell  him  what  I  knew  before  I  came  in  here;  said 

he  was  counsel  for  the  Chicago  Tribune;  other  parties  came  to  see  me. .  497 

The  $950  was  in  $20  bills,  I  believe .  495 

M. 


McCann,  Paul,  page  in  house,  forty-sixth  general  assembly,  testimony  of - 

About  5  minutes  before  senate  came  in  I  went  and  got  couple  of  roll  calls, 
and  gave  Browne  one  and  Gorman  or  Alschuler  one . 


486 

489 


'776 


INDEX. 


McCann,  Paul — Continued.  _ 

A  half? ”emberin8  ab0Ut  men  n0t  ,eaving  their  eeats  about  a  year  and  a 

As  to  where  senators  sat  when  they  came  into  house.*.*.'/.*.  *. .  foo 

Browne  did  not  leave  his  seat  during  the  joint  session  after  *1*2*  until  session 
arose,  I  was  keeping  a  roll  call  at  Browne’s  desk  4C7 

kour  seats  around  Browne  were  occupied  at  all  times  that  day.'.*.*.*.' .  400 

Aschuler  asked  me  to  go  on  an  errand  1  would  go,  or  for  Beckemve'r  487  488 
Know  Meyers;  saw  him  in  house  during  that  joint  session  after  12-  lie  atno^  ’  488 
time  went  to  Browne’s  desk  or  seat  and  talked  with  Browne  .  48fi  487 

At^  /i’rrj10  8ft  back  of.^rowne>  bad  a  habit  of  roaming  around  '  491’ 499 

Mind  did  not  recur  to  this  before  Aueust.  1910  .  ’  "I" 

No  one  had  conversation  with  Browne  during  the  Voll'cail . 

N°™  ln, al®le  immediately  adjoining  Browne’s  seat;  Meyers  did  not 

fessfon  0W"  *  ^  SU  m  any  S6at  adj°ininS  him  <^4  ^at  joint 

Remember  joint  session  26th  of  May,  1909  . 

Waisle.B.r.°WneS  d6Sk  Wh“  h<3  “ad0  WS  Speech;"  he  did  not 'step  out  in' the 
Mas  present  at  voting  for  Senator  on  day  preceding  the  day  Lorimer'was  488 

anyone  spoke  t0 

Was  the  only  page  who  came  to  Browne  that  day  .  400 

WS  Tye  “y.?  &  minority  leaden .' .'  186 

When  senate  came  into  house  and  took  seats  at  12,  I  was  at  Browne’s  desk 

tion  TBZLtZT'  the  86nate  W6nt  °Ut  (Wl,neSS  describes  jrosi- 
Meyers  coming  to  Browne’s  desk:  .  486 

Did  not  (Alschuler) .  .  312,315,316 

Did  not  (McCann) . .*.*.’!.’!.*!.* . 4c«  4c7 

Meyers  George  W.  Member  of  the.  forty-sixth  general  assembly;*  Democrat  ’ 
house;  banker,  Pans,  Ill.;  testimony  of  .  ’  „n 

<<There  are  S°me  g00d  State  jobs  t0  Sive  away,' and  the'r'eady 

Browne  said  the  speaker 'wanted  *to*  see  me,*  etc.';'  *1*  saw  the'speaker,  who  ’ 

bai<  i  ?  are  ^oin^  Pu^  tbls  over  to-day.  I  would  appreciate  it  if  vou 
would  help  us  out;”  I  told  him  I  could  not . .  Y  Si 3 

DforISm!atorWlth  members  of  1101186  about  Democrats  voting  for  Shurtleff 

Fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  before  taking  of  vote*  for'  Senator  I  had*  co'nversa-  314 
tion  with  Browne  m  the  house;  page  came  and  said  Browne  wanted  to 
see  me;  went  to  Browne’s  desk;  Browne  said,  “We  are  going  to  put  this 
over  to-day,  and  I  would  like  you  to  go  with  us;”  I  said,  “Lee,  I  can’t  do 

First  elected  to  legislature,  forty-sixth'  general'  'assembly'; '  Browne^  was'5’  316 
minority  leader;  was  a  member  of  Browne  faction .  Si  9 

Senator*  ar°Und  lobby  tbat  ^ov-  Deneen  was  discussed  as  candidate  for 
I  did  r,r'i  vrtio  t  .  _ _ _ _  i  i  .....  *  -  -  *  - ........  314,  315 


~  cv  iui  i  in  ci .).  . ......................  s  I  ^  sic 

I  testified  at  two  trials  at  People  v.  Browne;  never  testified  that  Browne  ’ 
would  aT let  meand  866  the  speaker;  aimed  to  tell  it  last  trial,  but  they 

1  on^  f°r  the  speaker’  who  was  a  Republican,*  as*  did*  ail*  Democrats  but  ^ 

It  was  known  that  a  Democrat  could  not  be  elected  Senator  unless'  Repub313’ 314 
licans  went  to  him .  y 

It  beaelectedrSt00d  ^  neitber  IIoPkin8i  Foss,  Mason',  nor  Webster 'could 

0  licans53  m  bouse’  1  tbink  tbere  were  64  Democrats;  others  were  Repub-  314 

^^1/  mnety-fi  f tli  or  ninety-sixth  ballot  was,  I  think,  first  time  any  Demo-  31 4 
enre  tJfv for  RePubPcail  in  j0111t  assembly;  prior  to  that  no  refer- 
as  to  rumors^  ^  L°nmer  by  Democrat9>  only  rumor  (further  testimony 

. . . . . . . .  313 


INDEX. 


777* 


Page. 

Moral  obliquity  of  some  witnesses  was  such  as  to  make  it  highly  improper  to 
accept  their  testimony  as  basis  upon  which  any  man’s  right  to  office  should 
depend  (Hey bum;  Report,  16). 

More  than  year  after  Lorimer’s  election  Barnes  presented  charges  on  informa¬ 
tion  that' three  members  had  been  bribed  by  Browne,  who  was  a  Democrat 
and  who  was  indicted  and  acquitted  (Heyburn;  Report,  15). 

Most  of  the  men  charged  with  crime  have  been  reelected  (Heyburn;  Report,  17). 

Murray,  H.  V.,  State’s  attorney,  Carlyle,  Ill.  (Witness  called  to  testify  m 
relation  to  conversation  of  Charles  E.  Luke,  deceased,  which  was  objected  to 
and  not  admitted) . .  388 


N. 


Newton,  Jarvis  0.,  chief  clerk,  State  Bank  of  Chicago,  Ill.,  testimony  of .  410 

Deposit  slip  marked  “Exhibit  1-S”  is  deposit  account  by  the  Holstlaw 
Deposit  Bank  of  Iuka,  Ill.,  date  June  16,  1909;  deposit  amount  $2,500, 
made  in  currency  by  Holstlaw  personally .  410,  411 

O. 


Oral  arguments  and  briefs,  as  to  submitting,  discussed  by  counsel 

P. 


713-716 


Postponement  of  hearings.  (See  Continuance.) 

Primary  election,  candidates  for  United  States  Senators  at  . - . 35,  36 

Primary  vote  on  candidates  for  United  States  Senator,  provisions  of  statutes 

relating  to .  34>  35 


R. 


Report  of  Committee:  ,  .  ,  ,  .  , 

Barnes  was  not  prepared  to  offer  anything  m  support  of  charges  but 
requested  Chicago  Tribune  be  permitted  to  appear  by  counsel  (Re¬ 
port,  15). 

Beckemeyer,  testimony  referred  to  (Report,  13). 

Bribery,  four  members  testified  to  receiving  money  for  their  votes — White, 
Link,  Beckemeyer  and  Holstlaw  (Report,  3). 

Bribery,  Lorimer  not  connected  with  acts  of  (Report,  2,  3). 

Bribery,  which  will  invalidate  election  of  Senator  (Report,  2). 

Bribery,  White,  chief  self-accuser  (Report,  3).  . 

Broderick  denies  bribery  and  gives  reasons  for  voting  for  Lorimer  (Re- 

Browne,1  Broderick,  and  Wilson,  committee  find  no  warrant  for  believing 
either  moved  by  corrupt  influences  (Report,  14). 

Browne,  suggestion  his  vote  should  be  given  Lorimer  first  made  to  him  by 
Speaker  Shurtleff  (Report,  14). 

Holstlaw,  testimony  referred  to  (Report,  13).  #  . 

In  Senate  every  presumption  is  in  favor  of  integrity  of  the  State  (Hey¬ 
burn;  Report,  16).  ,  _  .  . 

Investigation  chiefly  directed  to  question  whether  sufficient  number  were 
bribed  to  vote  for  Lorimer  to  render  election  invalid  (Report,  3). 

Investigation,  resolution  for  submitted  to  Senate  by  Lorimer  May  28, 1910 
(Report,  3). 

Link;  testimony  reviewed  (Report,  6,  7,  8,  9, 10, 11). 

Lorimer;  counsel  for  Tribune  did  not  expect  to  connect  with  acts  of  brib- 

Lorimer  elected  Senator  May  26,  1909,  receiving  108  votes  out  of  202;  Hop¬ 
kins  received  70  votes;  Stringer  received  24  votes  (Report,  1,  2). 

Lorimer  if  admitted  that  four  were  bribed,  he  still  had  majority  of  votes 
cast  and  election  valid  (Report,  14). 

Lorimer,  majority  in  joint  assembly  14  (Report,  13). 

Lorimer  neither  charged  nor  shown  to  have  bribed  or  corrupted  any  Mem¬ 
ber  or  to  have  knowledge  of  any  bribery  or  corruption  (Heyburn;  Re¬ 


port,  17).  . 

Lorimer,  no  other  person  has  claimed  right 
been  elected  (Heyburn;  Report,  15). 


to 


hold  the  office  or  to  have 


778 


INDEX. 


Report  of  Committee— Continued.  Page> 

Lorimer,  title  to  seat  in  Senate  not  shown  to  be  invalid  by  use  or  employ- 

corrupt  methods  or  practices,  signed  by  10  members  of  com¬ 
mittee  (Report,  15). 

Moral  obliquity  of  some  witnesses  was  such  as  to  make  it  highly  improper 
to  accept  their  testimony  as  basis  upon  which  any  man’s  right  to  office 
should  depend  (Heyburn;  Report,  16). 

More  than  year  after  Lorimer’s  election  Barnes  presented  charges  on 
information  that  three  members  had  been  bribed  by  Browne,  who  was  a 
Democrat,  and  who  was  indicted  and  acquitted  (Heyburn;  Report  15) 

Most  of  men  charged  with  crime  have  been  reelected  (Heyburn;  Report  17) 

Record  of  legislature  consisted  of  202  votes  on  joint  ballot;  108  votes  ’were 
cast  for  Lorimer  (Heyburn;  Report,  15). 

Right,  to  investigate  character  of  legislature  belongs  to  State  (Hevburn- 
Report,  16).  v  J  ’ 

Votes  required  to  elect  majority  of  a  quorum  of  each  house  (Report  2). 

White  contracted  to  sell  his  story  to  Chicago  Tribune  for  $3,500  and  to 
assist  in  substantiating  it  (Report,  5). 

V  hite,  in  letter  attempts  to  extort  money  from  Lorimer  (Report,  4). 

m<luiry  shows  his  corrupt  character  and  casts  suspicion  upon  truth 
of  his  story  of  bribery  (Report,  3). 

White,  no  credence  ought  to  be  given  to  any  part  of  his  testimony  tend¬ 
ing  to  establish  bribery  (Report,  5). 

Right  to  investigate  character  of  legislature  belongs  to  State  (Hevburn- 
Report,  16).  v  J  ’ 

Rossell,  William,  president  International  Association  of  Machinists  and  secre¬ 
tary  of  joint  labor  legislative  committee  of  the  forty-sixth  general  assembly 
testimony  of .  J  ^ 

As  to  what  I  heard  about  graft  at  Springfield . 454 

As  to  when  I  have  worked  at  my  craft . . .  457 

Had  conversation  with  White  spring  of  1910  outside  5-cent  theater;'  walked 
with  him  to  Palmer  House;  said  to  him,  “You  are  flving  pretty  high  for  a 
labor  skate.”  White  replied,  “Yes;  I  will  fly  a  damned  sight  higher 
before  J  get  through ;  do  you  know  anything  about  senatorial  graft  of  the 
legislature?”... . . . . .  452  453 

Have  been  at  Springfield  representing  Chicago  Federation  seven  years _  456’  457 

Have  been  down  to  the  legislature  since  forty-third  session,  *1903;  there 

was  always  talk  of  graft,  but  nothing  definite .  453 

Know  James  Doyle,  of  Springfield,  president  of  the  machinists;  he  asked 

me  what  kind  of  a  fellow  White  was .  454  455  450 

Met  White  at  the  forty-fifth  general  assembly;  he  was  then  representing 

the  Amalgamated  Street  Car  Wtorkmen . &  452 

Said  to  White,  “Charley,  what  have  you  got  your  mitt  out  against  labor 
legislation  for?”  White  said,  “WThat  do  you  mean?”  I  said,  “Jim 
Doyle  complains  to  me  that  you  want  money  on  this  electrification  bill, 
etc.;  what  kind  of  a  labor  man  do  you  consider  yourself?”  White  said 
it  was  a  lie,  etc .  450 

Was  at  Springfield  when  Lorimer  was  elected  Senator;  saw  WTiite  there; 
saw  one  of  the  Yarboroughs  there,  don’t  know  one  from  the  other;  had 
no  talk  with  WTiite  during  that  session  reference  to  election  of  Senator. .  454 

\\  as  very  friendly  to  WTiite  forty -sixth  session;  at  present  time  unfriendly.  454 
W  Into  also  said  to  me,  “The  niggers  gave  me  the  worst  of  it  in  the  legisla¬ 
ture,  and  I  am  going  to  make  them  put  me  on  easy  street,  or  I  will  make 
it,  damned  hot  for  them.”  I  said,  “Charley,  labor  has  many  friends 

among  the  leaders  on  both  sides,”  etc .  453 

White  further  said,  “I  don’t  give  a  damn  for  them;  I  am  looking  out  for 
Charley  WTiite;  if  you  know  anything  about  graft  tell  me  about  it,  and 
I  will  make  it  worth  your  while  ” .  453 

WTiite  loaned  me  money;  I  paid  it  back  to  him;  he  tried  to  coliect  it 
through  Ed.  Nuckols .  454 

S. 

Senate,  in,  every  presumption  its  in  favor  of  integrity  of  the  State  (Heyburn- 
Report,  16). 

St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  Springfield,  meeting: 

.  588,  589,  591,  592,  605,  606,  607,  610,  611,  612,  621,  627,  641,  642,  645,  663 

Clark .  356 


INDEX. 


779 


pQCT0 

St.  Nicholas  Hotel— Continued.  343  344 

De  W  olf . . . . * .  3i7 

Shephard .  39  40  141 

wdson  !!!!!!!!”  1!  ’  1  -  729,' 736’ 73i* 732, 734, 73s’  743 

Shaw,  Homer  E.,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house,  ^ 

B TelfeVl  wlfo™time°Lked  if'  I  could  vote' for  Lori'mer;'  think  Browne 

asked  me;  no  inducements  offered .  oui 

Did  not  vote  for  Lorimer . -  -  -  -  - . *  *  V  *  ° 

Do  not  know  whether  I  had  any  talk  with  Groves  or  not;  did  not  say  to 

him,  or  in  his  presence,  I  had  been  offered  money,  or  could  get  money, 

for  voting  for  Lorimer . *  *  - .  c0o 

Heard  of  barrels  being  opened,  but  did  not  see  any..... . -  *  * : 

I  stated  to  White  that  the  things  I  told  him  would  happen  to  him  had 

about  all  happened,  etc . - . . . - ; 

Mentioned  the  fact  to  White  that  his  people  were  largely  foreign,  strong 

Democratic  district,  etc . -  - .  ’  „ 

Mv  vote  was  not  a  purchasable  commodity - - - ; - * : - :  -  * 

Previous  to  election  of  Lorimer,  can  not  say  I  heard  serious  discussion 
with  reference  to  payment  of  money  for  votes;  heard  it  talked  after- 

wards,  during  the  session,  in  a  jocular  way . -  -  - . *  * ' ' 

Talk  was  kind  of  common  down  there  about  money  being  paid  for  votes 

for  Senator,  and  I  might  have  talked  with  Groves  about  that.  .  ....  oU3 

Talked  with  White  before  election  of  Lorimer— about  a  week  before; 
think  White  made  remark  if  he  got  a  chance  to  vote  for  Lorimer  he  was 
going  to  do  it;  I  said,  “Think  you  will  make  a  great  mistake  if  you  do 

Think  I  was  not  present  at  conversation  between  Groves  and  Terrill,  with 

reference  to  question  of  money  being  paid;  wouldn’t  say  positively .  o04 

Think  I  was  not  there  at  the  first  part  of  the  extra  session ;  think  it  com¬ 
menced  in  December;  second  or  third  day  of  the  session  I  arrived  there 

about  11  or  12  and  went  immediately  to  statehouse .  ..  ..... ...  -  oUJ 

When  I  arrived  at  extra  session,  I  went  to  statehouse  and  slid  into  the 
north  end  of  the  row  beside  White  and  said,  “Hello,  Charlie,  and  he 
sort  of  grunted;  finally  turned  to  him  and  said,  Charlie,  what  s  the 
matter  with  you?”  He  said,  “Oh,  I  am  sore  at  myself,  sore  at  the 

world,  and  feel  bad  in  general ”.  v-- . .  . . 

White’s  constituency  were  sore  at  him  because  he  voted  for  Lorimer. . ... .  oU3 

Shephard,  Henry  A.,  member  of  general  assembly,  Democrat,  house,  cashier 

State  Bank,  Jerseyville,  Ill.,  testimony  of . -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  0515 

Arnold  asked  me  if  I  knew  a  man  in  Chicago  named  McMahon  (further 

conversation  given) . . . . . j'  *  *  "i  *  KAr - 6 

Arnold  called  me  in  at  another  time  that  afternoon  and  said:  Wayman 

has  consented  to  give  you  one  more  chance,’  etc.;  that  night  U  Keefe 
and  I  went  down  to  the  Great  Northern  Hotel;  as  to  names  m  which 

they  registered . . . . - ;; .  66 

As  to  conversation  with  Arnold  as  to  his  having  to  treat  me  in  the  manner 

he  did  to  get  confessions . . . -  -  - .  Jq? 

As  to  my  giving  a  written  statement,  and  what  became  of  it . ------- 

As  to  what  took  place  before  grand  jury  second  time  June  27;  I  said  I 
never  understood  until  I  saw  the  paper  this  morning  in .  regard  to  that 
$500  bill;  he  asked  me  if  Bob  Wilson  gave  me  a  $500  bill  there,  and  1 
said  “No.”  After  grand  jury  examined  me  I  went  home  and  the  next 

grand  jury  was  at  Sangamon . -  -  -  -  - .  -  -  -  y  -  *  •  •*  * ;  v . 

As  to  what  took  place  in  Browne’s  room,  Southern  Hotel,  21st  of  June. . .  3-9 

As  to  what  took  place  while  I  was  in  custody  of  the  officer .  .  .  ----------- 

As  to  what  was  said  when  I  was  placed  in  charge  of  Officer  O  Keefe,  Arnold 


324 


there?”  Beckemeyer  said,  “I  did ”  (further  conversation  given)  .. . 
Browne  wrote:  “Will  be  in  St.  Louis  at  Southern  Hotel  at  a  certain  date, 
and  if  convenient  would  be  glad  to  see  you  ” ;  can  not  recall  what  the  con¬ 
versation  was;  details  of  what  Browne  and  I  did  that  day . . 

Common  practice  of  people  of  southern  and  central  Illinois  to  meet  at  St. 

Louis . 


331 

332 


780 


INDEX. 


Shephard,  Henry  A.— Continued. 

Conversation  in  detail  with  Lorimer . 

D%Lo+1?mer.was  elected  George  Alschuler,  a  member,  came  in  and  said 
bo  there  is  going  to  be  something  doing  to-day;  are  you  with  us?” 

merr’  I^said^No ”  What?  said’  * * Are  y°u  g°ing  to  vote  for  Lori- 

Did  not  see  Wilson  give  any  of  the  party  who  were  in  his  room  in  Southern 

Hotel  any  money  or  package;  he  called  me  into  the  bathroom .  o22 

Have  been  an  invalid  eight  or  nine  years;  treatment  before  grand  jurv  was 
severe  strain  on  me .  J  * 

I  did  not  get  any  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer  or  anyone  else;  never  heard 

oi  any  money  going  to  be  paid  in  Lorimer  election . 

I  relied  on  Lorimer’s  promise  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  prevent  Richards 
or  Decker  being  appointed  postmaster;  that  was  absolutely  the  onlv 
cause  for  my  voting  for  Lorimer .  *  si 8  siq 

1  ^ld’  Pr®Tce  ?{  Arnold  “Becke,  did  you  See  me' get  any  money 

there?  and  he  said,  “I  did  not,  Shep.,”  etc  *  y 

said  to  Arnold  grand  jury  can  indict  me  for  perjury,  but  you  can’t' con- 

323 


Page 

318 


317 


328 

329 


324 


317 

319 


320 


t  TV?  tor  P?/Juryi  after  that  I  was  placed  in  charge  of  Officer  Oake. 

1  told  Browne  if  I  could  prevent  a  fellow  who  is  candidate  for  post  office 
m  my  town  from  securing  it  I  may  be  induced  to  vote  for  Lorimer; 

Browne  said,  Oh,  that  can  not  enter  into  it” . 

I  was  a  member  of  the  Browne  faction . 

I  was  in  St.  Louis  day  Wilson  was  there  and  met  him,  believe  the  15th  day  of 
July  at  Southern  Hotel;  there  met  Link,  Luke,  White,  Clark,  and,  I 

think,  Beckemeyer,  all  part  of  Browne  faction . 

I  was  supoenaed  before  grand  jury,  Cook  County;  was’ put  in"  charge  'of 
officer,  Arnold,  assistant  State’s  attorney,  called  me  out  of  waiting 
room,  and  said,  Bob  Wilson  has  been  in  before  grand  jury  and  given 
teslimony  you  are  going  to  be  indicted  on  for  perjury;  you  have  lied  to 

23  representative  men  of  Chicago,”  etc . 

I  would  not  have  voted  for  Lorimer  if  he  had  not  made  promise,  as  to  pre¬ 
venting  appointment  of  two  men  named . 

Lorimer  was  in  the  speaker’s  room,  and  I  went  in;  BroWne  "started’  to 
introduce  me,  but  Lorimer  said,  “I  know  Mr.  Shephard  ” ;  Browne 
withdrew  and  I  said,  “Mr.  Lorimer,  I  have  been  asked  to  vote  for  you  ” 
elc\\  ^eluding  “If  you  will  promise  me  that  neither  Richards  nor  Becker 

shall  be  made  postmaster  I  will  vote  for  you” .  318 

Met  Browne  in  St.  Louis  some  day  after  adjournment  of  the  session,' at  ’ 
Southern  Hotel.  He  wrote  me  or  telegraphed  to  meet  him;  think  that  was 

-1st  of  June,  but  not  sure. .  319  320 

Murray  and  McMahon  represented  me  before  the  grand  jury';  I  paid  them  ’ 

a  retainer .  333  334 

No  one  told  me  why  Browne  did  not  come  to  meeting  at*  Southern  Hotel  •  ’ 

reasons  for  my  going  there  on  that  date . '  320 

Parties  whom  I  talked  with  about  my  treatment  before  grand  jury .  334  335 

Pitman,  W  S.,  was  name  of  postmaster  I  suggested  to  Senator  Lorimer, 


323 

335 


332 


think  in  October.  . . 

Presently,  after  talk  with  Alschuler,  Browne' called  meback  of  the  asse'm- 
)  y  room  and  said,  Harry,  aren’t  you  going  to  vote  for  Lorimer  to-dav  ” 
etc.  (witness  details  further  conversation  between  him  and  Browne)..’.. 

Prior  to  election  of  Lorimer,  possibly  a  week,  Browne  came  into  St.  Nicho¬ 
las  Hotel  Springfield,  and  said,  “There  is  going  to  be  something  doin^ 
soon  in  the  election  of  a  United  States  Senator.”  I  said,  “Whom  is  it 

“No”  etc  6  Said’  Lonmer;  could  y°u  vote  for  Lorimer?”  I  said, 

Was  at  safety-deposit  vault*  in  St.  Louis  the  day  I'met  Wilson,  before’ I  met 
Inm;  how  I  happened  to  know  that  Wilson  was  in  town;  Wilson  did  not 
exhibit  a  $500  bill  to  me  that  day .  32i 

^  ayman  subpoenaed  me  as  a  witness  at  Browne’s  first  trial;  did  not  testifv 
at  either  trial .  J 


335 


318 


317 


322 

329 


m  k  mie  mt0  balbr?om  on  21st  of  July  to  ask  me  a  question. .  329,  330 
©hurt  left,  Bid  ward,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Republican- 

speaker  of  the  house;  attorney  at  law;  Marengo,  Ill.;  testimony  of .  695 

a  °  i  tl0ns  0n  Republican  side  and  Democratic  side  of  house. .  704  705  706 

As  to  how  many  of  Tippit  and  Browne  faction  voted  for  Lorimer. . . .  704  70o’  706 

As  to  number  of  Republicans  and  Democrats  who  voted  for  me  for  speaker.  713 

As  to  what  parties  I  was  elected  as  speaker  by  at  different  times .  695 


INDEX. 


781 


696 

696 


696 


710 

669 


5hurtleff,  Edward — Continued.  Pa£e- 

Deneen  men  called  themselves  “The  band  of  hope” .  705 

Entire  membership  of  both  houses  was  204,  I  believe .  711 

Have  been  a  member  of  the  legislature  continuously  since  1901 . . .  695 

Have  no  recollection  of  Meyers  coming  to  my  desk  the  day  of  election  of 
Senator;  seem  to  have  in  my  head  sometime  at  somewhere  Meyers  said 

something  to  me  about  senatorship .  706,  707 

I  voted  for  Kleeman  for  speaker .  712 

Never  authorized  anybody  to  make  promises  of  payment  of  money  for 

voting  or  because  they  had  voted  for  Lorimer . . . 

Never  made  any  promises  of  patronage  or  favors  to  induce  any  member  to 

vote  for  Lorimer . -  -  - . . 

No  one  ever  gave  me  any  money  or  thing  of  value  to  aid  in  election  of 

Lorimer;  never  gave  any  to  aid  in  his  election . . . . . 

Suppose  there  was  a  faction  known  as  the  “Shurtleff  faction;”  I  did  not 

control  them  on  questions  involved  before  the  legislature .  709 

Was  speaker  of  house  at  time  Lorimer  was  elected  Senator .  695 

Was  speaker  of  the  house  twice  before  the  present  assembly .  695 

*  Word  was  sent  to  me  by  speaker  of  the  senate  to  permit  some  to  change 
their  votes  and  be  enrolled  for  Lorimer;  Lorimer  got  108  on  the  first  call 

of  the  roll . : .  709, 

Simmons,  Charles  H.,  engineer  and  contractor,  Chicago,  Ill.,  testimony  of.  . . . 

After  conversation  next  saw  WTiite  on  stand  at  Browne’s  second  trial;  had 

seen  his  picture  in  paper  before .  673 

Did  not  hear  White’s  reply,  but  Browne  took  money  out  of  pocket  and 
handed  White  a  few  five-dollar  bills,  about  $25;  White  said,  “Good- 

by,”  and  went  out . . . - .  669 

Farley  ran  ringers  on  Detroit  track  and  was  indicted;  was  paid  by  Farley 

to  look  after  his  interests  here .  670 

Got  a  call  from  Walsh  to  go  to  Briggs  House  17th  June;  how  I  fix  date; 

Walsh  was  not  there . - .  669,  671 

Had  not  seen  Browne  or  WTiite  before  as  I  know  of;  was  not  interested  in 

the  conversation .  671,  672,  673 

Have  bet  on  race  horses . > . -  -  670 

In  Briggs  House  June  17,  1909,  between  12  and  half  past  at  noon  in  public 
rotunda;  saw  Browne  and  WTiite  step  aside  from  other  gentlemen,  and 
WTiite  said,  “I  am  going  home,  and  I  am  broke;  can  you  let  me  have 
a  little  money?”  Browne  said,  “I  haven’t  got  much;  how  much  do  you 

want?”  etc . : .  669,671,672 

No  previous  personal  acquaintance  with  Browne  or  WTiite .  670,  671 

Not  done  anything  with  race  horses  since  1903 .  671 

Other  gentlemen  in  rotunda  at  time  referred  to .  673 

Western  Jockey  Club  tried  to  railroad  Farley  through  because  he  beat 

them  out  of  their  money .  672 

What  I  was  doing  in  Briggs  House  at  time .  669 

WTien  I  first  repeated  this  conversation  and  to  whom  and  where .  672 

Southern  Hotel,  St.  Louis,  meeting: 

Beckemeyer .  227,  228,  229,  253,  254,  257 

Browne .  599,  603,  604,  605,  606,  607,  610,  613,  623 

Clark .  353,  354,  356,  365,  367,  368 

Link . . .  280,  281,  283,  284,  291,  306,  307 

Shephard . .  319,  320,  322,  324,  329,  331 

Wilson .  722,  723,  724,  726,  727,  728,  729,  732,  735,  740,  741,  742 

Statutes  of  Illinois: 

Fixing  penalty  for  misconduct  of  member  of  general  assembly  (chairman 

stated  committee  took  judicial  notice  of  statutes  of  the  State) .  108 

Provisions  relating  to  primary  vote  on  candidates  for  United  States  Senator  .  34,  35 
Stermer,  William  H.,  assistant  manager,  Briggs  Hotel  Co.,  Chicago,  Ill.,  testi¬ 
mony  of . - . - —  531 

Browne  and  WTiite  had  been  on  boat  trip  the  day  of  this  conversation; 
Browne  was  sober  when  I  saw  him;  WThite  was  drunk  and  made  these 
threats;  never  heard  threats  before  or  after;  Zenter  and  I  spoke  of  con¬ 
versation  next  day . . - .  532,  533 

Browne  is  around  Briggs  House  a  great  deal;  has  lived  there  since  May 
this  year .  532 


70924°— S.  Rep.  942,  61-3- 


-50 


782 


INDEX. 


Stermer,  William  H. — Continued.  p 

Erfiibit  1-W,  K.  F.  L.,  being  from  testimony  of  Stermer  in  People  v 
-Browne,  read  to  committee .  F  *  c-on 

Jime  tJ1909Willte  Said  Browne  paid  ^im  moiiey  in  Briggs  House  15th  of 

How  I  know  it  was  19  th  of  August  I  had  conversation 'with  White;  *  Browne 
was  drinking,  but  didn  t  see  him  drinking  that  night-  White  was  a  little 
quarrelsome  at  first  and  a  little  talkative. . . ...  m 

Know  that  Browne  and  White  took  trips  across  the  lake  .  ’ 

My  story  was  reduced  to  writing  and  handed  to  attorneys  .  So 

On  occasion  of  conversation  with  White,  Zentner  and  White  had  apparently 
been  drinking  all  day;  at  11  o’clock  at  night  White  was  very  drunk- 
Zentner  not  very,  but  apparently  taking  care  of  White;  didn’t  see 
Browne  with  them  that  day . . . [  L 

°V?fab°vi  19thv°f  Augl[st’  1909>  in  my  presence  and  that  of  Zentner  ’  ° 

\\  hite  said  m  substance  he  was  gomg  to  take  a  trip  in  the  fall  and  winter’ 

^Browne11  ^  °T  tW°  WOrds’  my  testimony  here  is  same  as 'on  trial’s  J31’ 532 

Th.ink  B^wne  arrived  at  the  Briggs' House  i«h  of  June;’  think  he  remained 
two  or  three  days;  as  to  Arnold  and  myself  looking  up  register  to  see. . .  535  536 

Zentner  or  I  said  to  White^  “You  must  have  a  lot  of  money  to  spend  for 
anything  like  that.  White  replied,  “No,  but  I  am  going  to  get  it  with¬ 
out  working ;  that  Lorimer  crowd  and  our  old  pal  Browne  have  got  to 
come  across  good  and  hard,”  etc .  8  531  500 

Zeu  m  er  said  to  White,  ‘  ‘Have  you  got  anything  on  them?”'  *  White  ‘said,  ’ 

Ao;  1  got  the  worst  of  it  m  Springfield,  but  that  makes  no  difference-  I 
can  say  I  got  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer;  I  guess  they’ll  cough  off 
when  I  say  the  word  ” . ° .  0  531  -00 

Z(^ner  said  to  White,  “You  wouldn’t  treat  Browne  that*  way* would  you?”  ’ 

White  said,  I  am  looking  out  for  White,  and  Browne  wouldn’t  have  to 
pay,”  etc .  531  533 

Zentner  wanted  to  tell  conversation  to  some  one,  and  I  didn’t-’ I  told  ’ 

Browne  of  threats  1st  day  of  Mav.  1910 .  ’ 

Subcommittee,  list  of . . . . . . . *. *.  *. *.  *.  *.  ;  *_ ; ;  *  5d2’ 


T. 

Terrill,  Henry,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat;  house- 
merchant,  Colchester,  Ill.,  testimony  of .  497  ggQ 

Did  not  ask  Griffin  what  there  would  be  in  it  for  the  purpose  of  soliciting  a  ’ 
bribe,  but  for  curiosity .  0  gg9  gg3 

Did  not  tell  Griffin  my  purpose  in  asking  the  question'. .......  500 

I  do  not  mean  to  intimate  that  I  could  be  purchased .  498 

My  purpose  for  asking  Griffin  the  question .  499  gg2  gg3 

Never  told  anyone  I  could  earn  $1,000  if  I  voted  for  Lorimer'. .’ . ’  ’  682 

Nobody  told  me  they  were  getting  anything  for  voting  for  Lorimer .  498 

Prior  to  election  of  Senator,  Griffin,  a  Democrat,  member  of  the  house 
asked  me  to  vote  for  Lorimer;  I  asked  him  what  there  would  be  in  it,  and 

he  said  $1,000  anyway;  think  this  was  the  night  previous  to  election  of 
Lorimer. . .  .  498  680  6gl 

Remember  election  of  Lorimer,  26th  of  May .  497 

Repeated  to  Groves  conversation  I  had  with  Griffin  in  which  Griffin  stated 
there  would  be  $1,000  in  it  anyway;  I  never  was  offered  $1,000  at  any 

time  by  anyone  or  any  money  to  vote  for  Lorimer .  681  682 

Rumors  about  use  of  money  not  confined  to  any  one  candidate  for  Senator.  ’  682 

Was  a  Hopkms  man .  407400 

Threats  of  White:  . 

Clark . .  Qf?o 

Doyie . ;;;;;;;;;;;; . i64 

Bossell .  . 45J  453 

Stermer . """'.".W"";  53l' 533 

White’s  letter  to  Lorimer  and  in  Report,  4  . . ’  125 

F00.ds . *.*.  ’527,  528 


INDEX. 


783 


V. 


Page. 


Vandeveer,  Mollie,  stenographer,  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.,  testimony  of .  271 

About  middle  of  June  White  came  to  the  office  with  a  bunch  of  bills  of 
different  denominations,  twenties,  fifties,  and  tens,  gold-backed  money; 
did  not  count  the  money;  White  disposed  of  it  by  paying  bills  around; 


I  received  $50.50  of  it .  272 

As  to  bills  which  White  owed..  - .  274,  275,  276 

As  to  how  much  White  owed  me .  273,  274 

As  to  my  position  and  Mr.  .White’s  when  I  saw  the  money .  272,  273 

As  to  what  was  done  with  money  collected .  277 

At  that  time  I  was  20  years  old .  274 

I  ceased  working  for  White  in  July,  1909;  when  I  commenced  to  work  for 
him  April  12,  1909,  he  had  two  offices  in  the  Metropolitan  Building, 

East  St.  Louis;  only  worked  for  him  four  months .  276 

Was  employed  by  Charles  A.  White  as  stenographer .  272 


White  had  a  bank  account,  I  believe,  but  the  firm  had  no  bank  account. .  277 

Votes  required  to  elect  majority  of  a  quorum  of  each  house  (Report,  2). 


W. 

Wayman,  J.  M.  E.  W.,  state’s  attorney,  Cook  County,  Ill.,  testimony  of .  368 

Admitted  to  bar  in  1899;  since  then  have  been  continuously  engaged  in 

practice  of  law  in  Chicago . . .  368 

As  to  Link’s  refusing  to  testify  before  grand  jury  in  Sangamon  County.  377,  378,  379 

As  to  my  investigating  the  testimony  of  White  before  the  publication .  380 

As  to  talk  with  Link  about  his  being  in  custody .  370 

During  talks  with  Link  he  produced  a  letter,  signed  “Bob”  (Wilson), 

dated  June  26,  1909;  conversation  in  regard  to  letter  given .  374,  375 

During  the  conducting  the  grand  jury  I  talked  with  witnesses  there,  in¬ 
cluding  Link,  Wffiite,  Beckemeyer,  and  Shephard .  368 

Gloss,  whom  I  had  indicted,  was  a  street-car  conductor  in  a  traction  com¬ 
pany  here  (reasons  for  indictment) .  382,  383 

Grand  jury  convened  in  Cook  County  2d  of  May,  1909,  and  was  in  session 

May  4 .  368 

Grand  jury  returned  indictments  against  Gloss  and  Keeley,  and  the  cases 

will  be  tried  promptly . . .  382 

Had  employed  McGuire  &  White,  should  think,  30  day3  prior  to  edition 

of  Tribune  of  April  30 .  379,380,381 

I  personally  prosecuted  the  two  Browne  cases .  382 

Link,  before  grand  jury,  was  interrogated  whether  he  had  been  in  St. 

Louis  in  July,  1909,  and  he  said  he  hadn’t  been  there;  May  5  he  was 
placed  in  custody  of  an  officer  at  12.30  noon,  and  was  in  custody  of  an 

officer  till  following  Saturday  morning .  369 

Link  did  not  at  any  time,  to  my  knowledge,  protest  or  object  to  his  treat¬ 
ment,  nor  did  Beckemeyer .  373 

McGuire  was  employed  by  me  and  taking  orders  from  me  every  day .  381 

Messages  between  Link  and  myself  marked  “Exhibit  1— I,  H,  F,  L,”  Ex¬ 
hibit  1-J,  K,  F,  L,”  “Exhibit  1-L,  K,  F,  L,”  “Exhibit  1-M,  K,  F,  L,” 
“Exhibit  1-N,  K,  F,  L,”  “Exhibit  l-O,  K,  F,  L,”  “Exhibit  1-Q,  K,  F, 

L,”  read .  372,  373 

Names  of  officers  assigned  to  my  office  during  these  investigations .  381 

Reid,  Frank,  is  an  attorney  in  Chicago;  employed  him  to  represent  our 
office  in  relation  to  Link  when  subpoenaed  by  State’s  attorney  of  Sanga¬ 
mon  County .  375,  376,  377 

Talked  with  Shephard  outside  of  jury  room,  and  went  in  jury  room  when 

I  examined  him  before  grand  jury .  369 

White  and  Browne  did  not  know  each  other  until  elected  to  legislature,  ad¬ 
mitted  (Hanecy) .  39 

White,  Charles  A.,  member  of  general  assembly,  Democrat;  house;  no  employ¬ 
ment  at  present;  O’ Fallon,  Ill.;  testimony  of .  37,  412 

After  adjournment  of  house  on  June  4  I  met  Browne  in  Chicago — think 

June  16 — at  Briggs  House  (conversation  detailed) .  52,  54 

After  I  was  put  in  custody  of  officers  five  or  six  men  from  State  attorney’s 

office  traveled  with  me .  160 

After  session  closed  correspondence  came  up  with  Browne  about  getting 
position  for  me .  116 


784 


INDEX. 


White,  Charles  A.— Continued.  Page. 

After  writing  to  Senator  Lorimer  I  wrote  to  Browne;  think  February  27, 

1910,  to  which  I  received  no  reply .  ’  175 

Age,  29  years . . ’.’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  164 

Also  expended  this  money  for  money  borrowed  from  friends  (names  given) .  187 

Amount  disbursed  out  of  First  and  Third  National  Banks  about  S78 .  194 

As  to  my  acquaintence  with  Stermer .  413 


a  result  of  a  special  deposit  made  of  that  money  (list  of  bills  paid) .  178, 

.  ,  .  ,  '  i-79,  iso,  181 

As  to  when  transactions  here  testified  to  were  disclosed .  85 

As  to  who  dictated  letters  sent  to  Belleville  paper .  412 

As  to  why  language  was  inserted  that  I  was  to  devote  time  necessary  to 

substantiate  the  story . _  152 

At  time  I  received  the* $900  I  had  expended  the  $"l,6o6 . ”!!.*.*!  I  186, 187 

Belleville  Democrat;  letter  to,  May  29,  1909,  purporting  to  giving  reasons 

for  voting  for  Lorimer  (circumstances  of  writing  given) .  172 

Bill  against  Johnson  &  White  Realty  Co.  was  my  bill,  Johnson  having  left; 

John  A.  Johnson  was  the  first  partner;  second  was  John  W.  Dennis .  192 

Bills  marked  “Exhibit  1C”  and  “Exhibit  2  C”  receipted  by  Lantz  and 

Calkins  came  out  of  that  fund .  185, 186 

Borrowing  money  after  receipt  of  $1,900;  testimony  and  how  money  ex¬ 
pended  objected  to .  168-172 

Browne;  conversation  at  Briggs  House  when  he  paid"  me  $850 .  81 

Browne;  letters  from,  to  me,  marked  Exhibits  1  and  2  (printed  in  full). . .  53 

Browne,  minority  leader  in  house  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  com¬ 
munications  had  with  him  .  38 

Browne;  prior  to  talk  with  me  had  not  to  my  knowledge  voted  "for  a  Repub¬ 
lican  for  United  States  Senator;  I  had  not .  40 

Browne;  wrote  letters  to  and  received  letters  from  him  after  adjournment 

of  house,  and  met  him  thereafter  in  Chicago .  52 

Browne  got  one  of  the  Yarboroughs  a  place  through  my  suggestion .  142 

Browne  said  he  ought  to  have  more  than  some  other  members,  because  run¬ 
ning  greater  chances,  etc .  82 

Browne  solicited  me  to  support  him  for  minority  leader,  think  as  early  as 
November,  1908;  frequent  meetings  with  him  with  other  Democratic 

members  looking  to  his  election  in  or  about  January,  1909 .  39 

Browne  was  chosen  minority  leader  by  Democrats  in  the  house;  attended 
caucus  and  voted  for  Browne;  Tippit  pulled  away  his  men,  and  they 
did  not  recognize  Browne  as  leader,  but  he  acted  as  minority  leader  of 

his  faction .  109, 110 

Browne’s  candidacy;  I  supported .  39 

Browne’s  leadership;  did  not  follow  on  all  subjects;  voted  against  some  of 

Gov.  Deneen’s  propositions .  Ill,  112 

Can’t  recall  date  I  gave  check  to  John  or  Joe  Davidson .  191 

Chicago  Tribune;  as  to  what  part  of  confession  was  printed  in .  165, 166 

Chicago  Tribune  (conversation  as  to  price  witness  was  to  be  paid) .  151, 152 

Chicago  Tribune;  first  went  to,  with  this  story;  think  in  March,  sometime 

after  I  had  sent  manuscript  to  New  York  City  and  it  had  come  back _  85 

Chicago  Tribune;  had  the  entire  manuscript;  they  might  have  published 

less  than  a  quarter  of  it .  157 

Chicago  Tribune;  offered  the  story  to  them  for  publication;  detailed  con¬ 
versation  with  Tribune  people;  prior  to  that  had  offered  it  to  three  other 

publishing  houses .  103 

Chicago  Tribune;  published  the  story,  presume  about  a  month  and  a  half 

after  I  saw  State’s  attorney .  159 

Chicago  Tribune;  wanted  time  to  investigate  story  and  have  corroboration; 

I  went  with  an  officer  to  some  members  in  southern  Illinois  (naming 

them) .  166 

Clark,  Joseph,  Democratic  representative;  conversation  given  that  he 
wrote  Browne  he  was  not  satisfied  with  amount  received  from  Wilson...  82 
Clark,  Joseph,  met  me  in  Chicago  last  summer  and  on  boat  on  way  to 

Waukegan .  82 

Clark,  Joseph,  told  me  in  conversation  on  train  that  Link  would  have  voted 
for  Lorimer  for  $500,  but  by  holding  out  they  got  $1,000  apiece  (objected 
to;  admissibility  discussed;  excluded) .  82 


INDEX. 


785 


White,  Charles  A. — Continued.  _  b  . 

Confession  of,  in  Chicago  Tribune,  Exhibit  A . * . * 

Contract;  don’t  know  who  added  the  part  that  I  was  to  devote  my  time  to 

substantiate  the  story . - . . . . . .  ■ ■  -  -  -  -  - ;  163 

Contract  with  Chicago  Tribune;  do  not  know  who  drew  it;  nobody  did  it 

for  me  . 

Contract  with  Chicago  Tribune  does  not  speak  the  truth  entirely;  James 
Keeley  was  the  Tribune  man  I  was  talking  with;  Mr.  Alfred  Austrian 

and  Thomas  Maguire  were  present . - ;\y  ' '  * ;/  1 '  151 

Contract  with  Tribune  Company  reserves  to  me  publication  of  the  article 

in  book  or  magazine  form . . . . . -  -  -  -  161 

Conversation  with  Browne  about  voting  for  Lonmer;  as  to  time  and  place.  140 

Democrat  in  politics . v . .  33 

Democratic  candidate  for  Senator  was  Lawrence  B.  Stringer . 4U 

Deneen,  Gov.,  not  an  adherent  of  his;  met  him  only  twice  to  talk  with  _ 

him;  time  and  place  given . -  -  •  - - * . . . ;-•**-  \ 1 4> 

Did  not  deposit  all  of  money  received  from  the  State  for  salary,  etc.;  kept 
good  deal  to  pay  incidental  expenses  and  notes  given  for  campaign  ex- 


Did  not  deposit  any  money  received  from  Browne  in  any  bank .  194 

Disposition  of  the  $900  given,  including  trips  on  the  Lake  in  company 

with  Browne . - . -  -  -  - . . .  187,188,189 

Do  not  know  for  what  reason  I  am  m  custody  of  an  officer . ■*-<*> 

Do  not  recall  man  I  left  money  with  in  department  store;  I  counted  it  in 
presence  of  Kirkpatrick  and  marked  amount  on  envelope,  think  $700  or 

. .  195 

Draft  payable  to  Browne,  signed  O.  Haiberle,  cashier,  dated  Sept.  23, 

1909  (marked  “Exhibit  I”),  has  my  signature  on  the  back  of  it. .. - --  122 

Drew  my  sEtl&ry,  all  of  it  I  think,  before  l&st  of  February,  in  two  install- 

ments;  as  to  aggregate  amount  received . . - . -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  194 

During  time  I  was  conferring  with  Chicago  Tribune  I  was  told  by  Keeley 
it  was  a  case  for  the  State’s  attorney,  and  I  better  consult  him  about  the 

matter . . . * . - .  15/,  158 

Earlv  in  the  session  talked  with  Browne  about  getting  me  back  to  old 
position  on  railway  or  some  other;  Browne  wrote  the  company;  com¬ 
pany  replied  declining  to  hold  position  open ... - -  -  -  - . -------  y  116 

Eighteen  dollars  for  room  rent  is  payable  to  William  P.  Lantz,  bill  of  Cal¬ 
kins  is  for  $16.43 . . -  - . : . *  -  • . y  •  * .  19^ 

Elected  to  general  assembly  Nov.  3,  1908;  prior  to  election,  conductor  on 

interurban  railway . .  ^7 

Father’s  name  J.  A.  White . - . -**.-•*:-* 

First  National  Bank  of  O’Fallon;  first  opened  an  account  there  at  beginning 
“  of  the  session  directly  after  getting  my  salary,  presume  in  February,  1909; 

as  to  money  deposit  there . . . ..........  193 

First  talked  with  Browne  with  reference  to  voting  for  Lonmer  for  Senator 
night  of  May  24,  1909,  in  his  room,  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  Spnngfield;  con- 

vernation  given . . . - . : . - .  39’ 49 

Gave  Dan  Evans  small  sums  at  different  intervals .  191 

Gave  Sid  Yarborough  about  $30,  after  I  got  the  money  from  Browne;  can  t 

give  date,  near  the  last  of  June . - .  1" 

Gibbon,  Mike,  Browne  sent  $200  to  Chicago  by;  he  was  Browne  s  stenog¬ 
rapher  and  secretary . . 

Gloss,  George,  conversation  with. . . .  4'4 

Gloss,  George,  know  him;  he  testified  in  Browne  case .  139 

Gloss,  George,  know  him;  last  I  knew  of  him  he  was  motorman  on  street  car 
in  Chicago;  do  not  remember  whether  I  met  him  Sunday  before  election 
of  Lorimer;  never  discussed  with  him  possibility  of  electing  Lorimer. . . .  146 

Gloss,  George,  might  have  met  him  at  Briggs  House  in  July,  1909,  after 
Lorimer’s  election,  but  couldn’t  be  positive  (further  questions  asked  as  to 

conversations  with  Gloss) . -  -  -  - . -  143 

Gloss,  George  (testimony  at  first  trial  read  to  witness),  do  not  now  recall 
what  the  questions  were,  and  do  not  now  remember  conversation  with 

him  etc . . .  44^ 

Got  the  $10  of  Stermer  asked  for  in  the  letter  and  repaid  it .  414 

Gray,  Will,  came  up  here  from  St.  Louis  with  me,  and  we  spent  money 


194 


freely 


188 


Had  no  business  or  office  in  St.  Louis  or  in  O’ Fallon .  195 


786 


INDEX. 


White,  Charles  A. — Continued. 

Had  other  correepondeneB  with  Browne  besides  letters  marked  “Exhibitsl 
1909-  I  wrote  and  signed  letter  to  Browne  marked  “  Exhibit  A,  July  12, 


Page, 


161 


1909  . . 

Have  been  told  I  am  to  be  a  witness  in  the  Gloss  case  and  the  Wiison  case114’ 115 
that  is  not  to  my  knowledge  why  I  am  in  custody  of  an  officer .  ’ 

am  not  possessed  with  means;  never  have  been  married;  expected't'o*  iet 
money  enough  to  pay  expenses .  ’  t0  Set 

1  ^d.business.  under  the  name  of  Johnson  &  White  Real  tw  Co.'  and  'the 
«  ^ational  Claim  and  Adjustment  Co.  (bills  against  both  referred  to)  iqo 

“  Tark  ”  on,0  ltS  +b-emf  Prt  °fent^e  agreement  to  vote  for  Lorimer'  * * '  49*50 
Jack  pot  conversation  (objected  to  bv  Hanecvl  ’ "  y’  2; 

Jackpot’’ —  .  M 

K^owfedSTof6  ab°Ut  B  at  ^me  be  offered  me  money  to  vote  for  Lorimer.  48 

Met  Wilson  in  Southern  Hotel '(name's  bemdcr'a'tic'mem'berV  of  house  50 
room^  ln  r°°m  an<^  ^etails  conversation);  he  paid  me  $900  in  bath- 


81 


138 


have  any  conversation  with  him  in  relation  to  holding  up  any 


Did  not  talk  with  him  about  defeating  a  bill  so  as  to  get  money  *  (Wit¬ 
ness  denies  conversation  relating  to  Senatorship  election)  mA 

Know  who  he  is,  member  of  the  legislature,  but  not  any  too  intimately; 
hmk  he  was  chairman  of  committee  of  which  I  was  a  member;  don’t 
think  had  any  conversation  with  him  except  he  mentioned  seeing 

Browne  and  me  in  Michigan  with  certain  people,  etc .  186 

Kirkpatrick,  T.  P.,  was  the  man  who  took  me  to  the  cashier  who  received 
the  money  at  the  Grand  Leader;  can  not  recall  cashier’s  name.. 

^“5?®  ^aifig-01ing  from  Chicago,  on  Chicago  and  Eastern  Illinois* 

Clark  told  me  that  Link  was  willing  to  vote  for  Lorimer  for  $500,  but  by 
r  bis  getting  Link  to  hold  out  they  got  $1  000  y 

Legislature —  . 


185 


412 


As  to  counsel  agreeing  to  political  affiliations  of  members  of  59 

Was  elected  to  as  a  Democrat  . 


Wread)°m  “  “  member  of  Chief' Justice*  Cartwright '(form  of'iath 


109 


T  Pt3wn0] ^my  ?  (objected'to';*  not  admitted  at 'this' time).'  .* 

by  me  B  ™  dated  July  16’  1909  (marked  “Exhibit  4”),  received 


107 

102 


Letter  from  Browne,  dated  Oct*. 24,'  1909' (marked  ‘‘ExhibitM'’’),' received 
Lbv  me0™  Br0Wne-  dated  Nov'.  6,' MOST  (marked  '“Exhibit' Q”)',' receive d 

:d'Ca; 1  if :  -  kxh 

Letter  from  Browne  to  me,  dated  Sept.  23,  1909  (marked  ‘‘Exhibit  H ’’).* .' 


56 


124 


127 


121 


Money  paid  from,  in  connection  with 'legislation;  aside 'from 'senatoriai 
lt®c^on  (objected  to  by  Hanecy);  hearing  of  counsel  as  to  admissibil- 

Testimony  admitted* . . .  I 

Names  of  Democratic  representatives  present  at  Southern  Hotel  when 
money  was  paid  from . 

Question  objected  to  by  Hanecy.* ! !  .* ! ! .' !  . .  S 

Received  my  money  from  Mr.  Wilson, 'member*  of  legislature .  47 

waS  mu  1  would  S?4  aily  hom’  until  3  months  after  session  closed ' '  48 

t  i  Would  have  voted  for  Lonmer  for  the  $1,000  without  the  *'  ao 

im°n>ey+;  dldj1-0t  dePosit  any  of  that  in  bank;  kept  it  in* my  pocket 
when  I  was  nt  spending  it;  accounts  in  banks  in  St.  Louis  and  in  O’ Fal¬ 
Johnson  and  White;  I  am  the  White  of  that  concern  (bills  paid  out  of" the 
money  recmvetl  from  Browne  June  16  or  17,  1909  marked  “Exhibit  TR  ” 
“Exhibit  2B,”  “Exhibit  3B,”  “Exhibit  4B,”  and  “Elhibit  5B ”)  ’  18,  is, 

Tnv  wmf  B’  ne7er.hf rd  of  him  before  he  was  called  on  witness  stand!.'. . 8  1|| 
Joj ,  William,  extent  of  my  acquaintance  with .  -174 

Joy  s  sffioon;  did  not  say  there  or  any  other  place  I  could  have*  voted  for 

to  votefor’dnimer.  “e  616  W°Uld  be  n°thing  in  il  for  me  and  was  Soing 
Kerns,  Thomas —  . 


195  ' 


178 


INDEX. 


787 


White,  Charles  A. — Continued.  Page- 

Letter  from  Browne  to  me,  dated  Nov.  2,  1909  (marked  “Exhibit  P’  ) -  126 

Letter  from  Browne  to  me,  dated  Nov.  2,  1909  (marked  “Exhibit  S”), 

received  by  me .  127 

Letter  from  Senator  Lorimer  to  witness,  dated  Dec.  13,  1909,  read .  164 

Letter  marked  “Exhibit  1-T”  to  Stermer  (asking  him  to  loan  me  $10  for  a 

few  days)  is  my  letter .  413,  414 

Letter,  notdated,  to  Browne  (marked  “Exhibit  G  ”)  was  written  by  me,  but 
there  is  a  word  added;  note  referred  to  I  think  Browne  sent  back  to  me; 

he  sent  me  $50 .  120, 121 

Letter  to  Browne,  dated  Oct.  1, 1909,  signed  Chas.  White  (marked  “Exhibit 

J”),  signed  by  me .  122 

Letter  to  Browne  of  Sept.  8,  in  which  I  asked  loan  of  money;  as  to  how  I  had 

expended  $1,900  received  previously .  167 

Letter  to  Browne  signed  Sept.  8, 1909  (marked  “Exhibit  B  ”),  and  signature 

are  my  handwriting .  117 

Letter  to  Hon.  Fred  J.  Kern,  dated  May  29,  1909  (marked  “Exhibit  T”), 
signed  by  me,  was  partially  dictated  by  Browne;  editorial  in  News- 

Democrat  result  of  a  republication  of  this  letter .  128 

Letter  to  Lorimer  again  referred  to — if  he  had,  in  reply,  offered  $75,000  I 
would  have  let  him  have  manuscript;  might  have  turned  money  over 

to  somebody  else . 164 

Letter  to  Senator  Lorimer;  stated  to  Keeley,  Austrian,  and  Maguire  the 

substance  of  it . - . .  154 

Letter  to  Senator  Lorimer,  dated  Oct.  19,  1909  (marked  “Exhibit  L”),  I 

wrote  and  sent  to  him .  123 

Letter  to  Senator  Lorimer,  dated  O’ Fallon,  Dec.  4,  1909  (marked  “Exhibit 

N  ”),  I  wrote  and  signed .  125 

Letter  to  Senator  Lorimer  of  Sej>t.  4,  1909,  was  written  for  the  purpose  of 

obtaining  a  reply  to  be  used  with  the  exposure,  etc .  150 

Letter  to  Senator  Lorimer  of  Dec.  4,  1909,  wherein  I  state  I  have  been 
offered  a  sum  sufficient  to  value  the  manuscript  at  $2.50  a  word  was 

not  true .  154 

Letter  to  Senator  Lorimer  was  embodied  in  substance  in  my  confession ...  165 

Letters,  dated  June  9,  1909,  and  June  13,  1909,  marked  “Exhibits  1  and 

2,”  received  from  Browne  (printed  in  full) . -  -  52,  53 

Lorimer;  after  my  vote  for,  I  received  $100  in  Springfield,  then  $900  in 

Briggs  House,  Chicago . •- .  52 

Lorimer;  Democratic  members,  before  May  26,  1909,  had  none  of  them,  to 

my  knowledge,  voted  for .  52 

Lorimer,  elected  Senator  in  joint  session  May  26,  1909;  was  notified  by 

Browne  it  would  come  off  then . . . . - . .  51 

Lorimer,  I  hoped  to  get  letter  from,  to  use  in  connection  with  publication; 

had  no  evidence  against  Lorimer  directly,  no  dealings  with  him .  164 

Lorimer  money  and  “jack-pot”  money,  how  and  when  I  spent  it,  previous 

to  letter  Sept.  8  to  Browne  asking  loan  of  money . -  - .  167 

Memoranda  of  debts  paid  (marked  “Exhibit  1  C,”  and  “Exhibit  2  C”); 
paid  my  stenographer,  Miss  Vandeveer,  back  wages,  $50.50;  paid  Otis 

Yarborough  $50 . . .  183, 184 

Minority  split  in  two  factions,  Tippit  action  and  Browne  faction .  40 

Money  paid  me  by  Browne  in  Chicago  (conversation) .  54 

Money  paid  me  by  Browne  in  Springfield,  circumstances  and  conversa¬ 
tion . - . - .  55 

Money  received  in  installments;  times  and  circumstances  given .  116 

Money,  received  the  $50  on  the  16th,  and  on  the  17th  received  the  $850  . .  139 

Montgomery  Advertising  Co.,  no  company  to  it  except  myself  and  the 

people  who  assisted  in  the  business . .  192 

My  salary  account  in  legislature  was  $2,000  and  mileage,  and  $50  for  post¬ 
age;  drew  all  my  salary  before  the  last  of  Feb.,  1909  .  178 

Never  killed  anyone;  was  never  arrested . . . ; . : -  165 

New  York  Tribune,  somebody  told  me  to  go  to  (objection  to  witness  stating 

by  whom;  decided  as  not  competent  at  this  time) .  85-87, 100 

Note  for  $50  payable  to  Browne  signed  by  me  dated  Sept.  8,  1909  (marked 
“Exhibit  C”),  is  my  handwriting;  Browne  loaned  me  that  $50;  paid  it 

back  to  him  (time  and  circumstances  detailed) . -  - - 117, 118 

Note,  payable  to  Browne,  dated  Sept.  25,  1909  (marked  “Exhibit  K”) 
signed  by  me;  paid  this  note  same  time  paid  the  other  one,  after  29th 
or  30th  of  June  of  this  year .  123 


788 


INDEX. 


White,  Charles  A. — Continued.  page. 

Officers  have  taken  me  to  different  States  and  paid  transportation  and 
hotel  bills .  -Q3 

People  v.  Browne,  testified  at  first  trial  of  (certain  testimony  at  that  trial 

read  to  witness  and  questions  asked  him  in  regard  to  it) .  145 

People  v.  Browne  (testimony  at  second  trial  read  to  witness*;  admitted  to 
be  correct) . 

Prior.to  publication  of  story  I  stayed  in  Chicago  a  good  deal  of  the  time...  166 

Receipt  presented  here  of  $16.42,  how  made  up .  195 

Representative  of  street  electric  railway  employees  at  Springfield  during 
session  of  1907 .  37  106 

Rossell,  William,  extent  of  my  acquaintance  with,  including  conversa¬ 
tion  at  Palmer  House .  173 

Russell,  William,  know  him,  a  labor  leader  (witness*  asked  as*  to  meetings 
and  conversations  with  him;  denied  conversation  as  to  senatorial  graft.  137 
St.  Nicholas  Hotel;  made  it  my  stopping  place  until  end  of  session,  which 

commenced  early  in  January  and  lasted  until  4th  of  June .  138 

State’s  attorney;  discussed  with  him  matter  of  corruption  in  legislature*.*  ’.  159 

State’s  attorney;  I  went  to  him  some  time  in  March,  should  "jud°-e;  did 

not  take  the  story  there  with  me . .  158 

State’s  attorney;  I  went  to  his  office  because  Keeley  thought  it  was  a  case 
for  him..... . .  163  164 

Stermer,  William;  extent  of  my  acquaintance  with .  172 

Stermer,  William,  met  him  through  Browne  at  Briggs  House*;  also*  Fred 
Zentner  (witness  asked  as  to  conversations  with  them,  including  state- 
ment  that  he  must  have  a  lot  of  money  without  working,  etc.).  133,134,135 
Stopped  at  Briggs  House  frequently  when  in  Chicago;  Browne  stopped 

there;  Stermer  was  assistant  manager .  414 

Story  published  in  Chicago  Tribune,  never  counted  number  of  words  (rea¬ 
son  given  as  to  why  he  stated  in  letter  to  Senator  Lorimer  contained 

about  30,000  words) .  154 

Story  taken  to  Chicago  Tribune  (marked  “Exhibit  *6*’*’)*  '(‘objected  to;’  'sus¬ 
tained  at  this  time) .  105-106 

Story  that  I  have  told  to  committee  here  substantially  the  story  I  told  to 

the  State’s  attorney  for  this  county .  112 

Story  which  Chicago  Tribune  published  I  corresponded*  with  three  dif¬ 
ferent  parties  with  a  view  to  publishing  it,  but  to  no  others .  153, 154 

Story  with  reference  to  Lorimer  election  was  completed  in  September, 

1909;  statements  or  testimony  in  court  have  not  varied  from  written 

manuscript  so  far  as  I  know .  165 

Stratford  Hotel,  stopped  there  while  in  Tennessee;  Otis  Yarborough*  was 

with  me . .  139  199  191 

Talked  with  Browne  afternoon  May  25,  1909,  in  his  room;  conversation 
detailed,  including  promise  of  $1,000  cash  and  as  much  or  more  from 

“jackpot” .  4i_5i 

Telegram  dated  July  14,  1909,  received  from  Robert  E.  Wilson,  a  Demo¬ 
cratic  representative  from  Chicago  (marked  “Exhibit  3”);  met  Wilson 
July  15,  Southern  Hotel,  St.  Louis,  and  other  Democratic  representatives, 

named.  .  55,56,57 

lelegram  from  James  L.  Monaghan  to  Browne,  dated  November  1  (marked 

“Exhibit  R”),  received  by  me . 127 

Telegram  to  Browne,  dated  November  5,  1909  (marked*  “Exhibit  O  ,*>) 

sent  by  me .  126 

Telegram  to  Browne  dated  September  15*  ’  1909  *  (marked  *“  Exhibit*  E  *”*)*; 
telegram  by  Browne  (marked  “Exhibit  F”)  dated  September  16,  1909, 

received  by  me .  120 

Testified  in  two  other  cases  on  same  matter  have  testified  to  here  (cases 

named) . : . . . . .  114 

The  $250  was  paid  by  Tribune  to  me  prior  to  agreement  with  me,  and  in 

small  amounts,  as  expenses .  166 

Tippit  was  an  adherent  of  Roger  C.  Sullivan .  110 

Tribune,  prior  to  opening  negotiations  with,  had  completed  story .  165 

Tribune  Co.,  contract  entered  into  with,  dated  April  29,  19i0  (marked 

“Exhibit  5”) . 104 

Tried  to  get  another  man  to  go  to  a  man  and  confess .  175 

Turner  introduced  himself  when  with  me  in  different  parts  of  the  State  as 
Tierney .  160 


INDEX. 


789 


White,  Charles  A.— Continued.  Pase' 

Turner,  whom  I  was  informedwas  sent  as  a  representative  of  State  attor¬ 
ney’s  office,  went  with  me  to  investigate  the  story - .... -  ........  159 

Used  $100  received  in  Springfield  in  paying  expenses  m  East  St.  Louis; 

presents  made  out  of  this  amount  enumerated . .  S 

Vote  discussion  as  to  the  admissibility  of  evidence  relating  to . 90, 10Z 

Vote’  of  the  joint  assembly  electing  Lorimer  United  States  Senator  was 
May  26,  1909;  no  more  joint  sessions  afterwards  that  day;  final  adjourn¬ 
ment  was  somewhere  4th  or  5th  of  J une . -  -  -  -  - - -  115 

Voted  for  Lorimer  for  United  States  Senator  May  26,  1909,  the  only  time  I 

voted  for  him . -  *  -  *  -;**-*-***. .  , 

Was  in  real  estate  business  and  had  a  partner  at  Last  St.  Louis.  - ....  J.9U 

Was  not  indicted  for  the  story  I  told;  was  in  custody  of  an  officer  for  a 
time;  am  still  in  custody  of  one  of  the  officers  of  the  office  of  State  attor¬ 
ney  for  Cook  County . .----- - .-v- - -  110 

Was  raised  in  Knoxville,  and  that  is  the  place  I  visited  when  I  said  I  went 

home . * . . ■  •  ■  •  •  . *  * - : "  *  9 

Was  subpoenaed  to  come  here;  have  been  m  custody  of  an  officer  since 
criminal  court  commenced  proceedings  in  March  or  April;  details  of 

service  of  subpoena . ------ . :  *  * - 196 

When  I  received  this  money  and  went  to  O  Fallon  and  then  to  Last  St. 

Louis  I  exhibited  it  in  presence  of  Yarborough,  Dennis,  and  Miss 
Vandeveer;  made  a  deposit  about  $800  of  the  money  not  of  record,  but 

with  the  cashier  of  Grand  Leader  department  store.  -------- -  -  -  - .  184> 185 

Why  I  am  in  custody  now,  not  positive;  understand  held  for  Wilson  and 

Gloss  cases . . .  ^ . ” - •*•***  *. v \ . i  11 

Woods,  Katherine,  lunched  with  her  m  St.  Louis;  talked  with  her  several 

times  (witness  was  asked  about  various  conversations  with  her). .  130,  lol,  lo2 
Woods,  Katherine;  my  acquaintance  with  her  was  substantially  going  m 

and  buying  cigars . . . -  -  - ;  -  •  v  *  .  172 

Yarborough,  Otis;  Browne  caused  him  to  be  put  on  pay  roll  of  Illinois  as  a 

janitor;  as  to  Browne  securing  appointments  for  others .  174 

Yarborough,  Otis;  did  things  around  the  office,  but  not  as  a  secretaiy, 

possibly  he  worked  a  month,  maybe  longer,  for  me. . . . . .  144 

Yarborough,  Otis  and  Sydney;  were  in  my  room  at  time  Browne  came 
there  night  24th  of  May,  1909;  they  were  in  bed  m  my  room  and  heard 

Browne  invite  me  to  his  room . - . .  444 

Zentner  accompanied  me  on  trips  as  the  friend  of  Browne . -  |7o 

Zentner,  Fred,  extent  of  my  acquaintance  with . -  - . . .  4/A  478 

White  contracted  to  sell  his  story  to  Chicago  Tribune  for  $3,500  and  to  assist 
in  substantiating  it  (Report,  5). 

White  in  letter  attempts  to  extort  money  from  Lorimer  (Report,  4). 

White,  inquiry  shows  his  corrupt  character  and  casts  suspicion  upon  truth  oi 

his  story  of  bribery  (Report,  3).  ,. 

White,  no  credence  ought  to  be  given  to  any  part  of  his  testimony  tending  to 

establish  bribery  (Report,  5). 

White,  threats  of: 

Clark . .  .  '  - 

Doyle .  464,  465 

. .  W  503 

White’s  letter  to  Lorimer  and  Report,  page  4 . -  4^5 

Woods .  527’”f5 

Zentner . . . - . v  -  -  *  * . V  6 

Wilson,  Robert  E.,  member  of  forty-sixth  general  assembly;  Democrat, 

house;  real  estate;  employed  by  my  brother;  Chicago,  Ill.;  testimony  of .  717 

After  I  returned  from  St.  Louis  I  reported  to  Browne  on  subject  ot  banquet; 

think  I  reported  to  Allison  on  the  telephone . - . ------  ' 28 

After  subcommittee  of  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  met  in  Chi¬ 
cago,  about  20th  of  September,  1910,  I  knew  of  it ;  only  knew  they  had  met 

when  I  got  back:  think  17th;  think  subcommittee  had  adjourned  . . . .  718 

Am  a  member  of  the  legislature  now;  was  renominated  at  a  direct  primary  in 
my  district  in  Chicago  on  15th  of  September,  and  was  reelected  Nov.  8  for  _ 

two  years,  the  session  commencing  next  January . .  745,  746 

As  to  correctness  of  testimony  of  Shephard  in  regard  to  mv  taking  him  into 
bathroom,  and  asking  him  who  lady  was  I  saw  him  with  in  St.  Nicholas 

Hotel .  743 


790 


INDEX. 


Page. 


Wilson,  Robert  E  —  Continued. 

As  to  my  testimony  before  grand  jury  in  relation  to  conversation  with  Shep¬ 
hard  m  bathroom .  731  -q9 

As  to  subpoena  issued  for;  memorandum  from  sergeant  aVarm's". .  674  675 

As  to  the  time  when  I  left  Chicago  relative  to  the  meeting  of  this  committee  ’ 

&ncl  where  I  weis. . . .  743  744  74^  74fi  7 

As  to  when  Browne  banquet  was  first  talked  if.'and  whom  I  'talked  with  727  T>9, 

As  to  when  I  left  Chicago  after  primaries .  7i«  7iq 

At  St.  Louts  morning  of  July  15  I  met  Beckemeyer,  Luke.'Shephaid,  Li^k 
Clark,  and  White ;  expected  to  meet  them  there . _  * 


723 


f  ii  e  sai<b  ^  o;  I  didn’t  get  any  money,  and  anybody  wno  says 
so  is  a  liar  . . .  *’>70  a  <700 

"^ixmnd!^  *rou^e  came  about  I  weighed  200  pounds;  I  have  lost  30  ' 

Before  the  grand  jury  i  may' have  'skid'i'had  n'o't'seen'sh'e'p'harf'-rith'a 
woman  at  ^t.  IS  icholas  Hotel  and  had  no  discussion  with  him  about  beino- 

with  a  woman  at  the  St.  Nicholas  Hotel .  0  7o9 

Browne  and  Broderick  were  reelected .  .  77Z 

Browne  faction  residing  in  southern  Illinois  *1  knew  well .  -too 

Browne  is  a  personal  friend .  . 

Clark  in  Springfield  said  that  Tierney  and  White  were 'there  and  he  went  ' 
over  some  talk  m  regard  to  their  receiving  money  for  voting  for  Lorimer 
and  also  from  me,  and  I  said,  “There  is  nothing  to  it;  I  do  not  believe 

Daresay  I  registered  at  the  hotel  in  St.'  Louis;  did  not  staV  todi'mierV. . 740  741 

Did  not  hand  package  to  Link  at  Southern  Hotel,  St.  Louis  *  *  ’ 

Did  not  know  White  very  well . . /  ’ . 

Dl^^t.Pay  white  any  money  on  that  day  in  St.  Louis,"  nor  Beckemeyer', 

Do  not  always  go  to  Peoria  from  Chicago  by  way  of  Springfield,  "but" ’this 

time  I  had  some  business  at  Springfield .  ^  7qfi 

Do  not  know  where  Allison  lives .  *  . .  L™ 

Do  not  know  whether  Browne  intended  to  goto  "St.'Louiimeetfrig  or  not* 
think  probably  he  did.. .  0  * 

Do  not  know  whether  I  wrote  letters  personally  to*  them  "to  be  "there;  "can 

h+°^  J  notified  them;  think  I  sent  Clark  a  personal  letter  and 
told  him  to  let  Link  know . f .  ~2o  -04 

Do  not  recall  that  I  was  at  Briggs  House  the  day  before  I  left  for  *St". "Louis  ’  722 
Do  not  remember  meetmg  any  southern  Illinois  members  at  St.  Louis  until 
after  I  was  m  my  room;  as  to  the  order  in  which  they  came  to  my  room 
in  St.  Louis . . .  741 

Do  not  think  White  went  into  my  bathroom  with  me;  do  not  recollect"  that 
I  called  him  into  the  bathroom .  72q 

Had  seen  Shephard  at  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  Springfield;  heard  he  was'dtoto" 
there  with  some  lady .  0 

Have  no  recollection  of  conversation  with  Shephard"  in  bathroom"  adjoining 

my  room  m  Southern  Hotel;  chances  are  I  did  have .  730  731  743 

Have  no  recollection  of  sending  White  a  telegram  to  meet  me  in  St  Louis’ 

figured  it  that  telegram  was  a  fake .  704  741  749 

IJave  n°  recollection  whether  I  called  Shephard  into  my  bathroom  or  not;  ’ 

if  Shephard  testified  I  did  I’ll  say  I  did . .  . .  729  730 

Have  not  stated  Browne  was  to  attend  that  meeting  in  St."  Louis"  withr’ef-  ’ 
erence  to  the  banquet . 

If  Beckemeyer  or  Link  testified  that  we  discussed  the  meeting  of  July  15 
and  the  subject  was  banquet  for  Browne,  and  talked  with  me  about  writ¬ 
ing  a  letter  and  pending  it  to  southern  Illinois  member  fixing  a  meeting 
place  at  St.  Louis,  they  were  not  correct .  0  735 

If  Beckemeyer  testified  that  on  the  same  occasion  I  handed  him  a  package 
containing  $900,  it  is  not  correct .  r  733  73 a 

11  e1!  ™nnt  throug^  what  Link  went  through  probably"  I  would  "have"  said  ’ 
$1,000  or  any  other  sum;  Shephard  was  on  a  bench  at  one  end  and  Link 
on  the  other;  I  said  to  Mever,  “There  is  Link  and  Shephard  sitting  on  a 
bench  over  there;  Link’s  eyes  are  sticking  out  of  his  head  and  Shephard 
is  doubled  up  like  a  jackknife;”  know  onlv  about  third  degree  what 
these  men  said . . .  73^  733 


INDEX. 


791 

Wilson,  Robert  E. — Continued.  .  Pase- 

Knew  Browne’s  attitude  in  regard  to  banquet  when  I  went  to  St.  Louis; 

he  opposed  the  banquet .  728 

Letters  shown  me  dated  June  26, 1909,  addressed  Beckemeyer,  Carlyle,  Ill., 
is  my  signature;  it  refers  to  Doc  Allison;  if  Beckemeyer  says  it  was  re¬ 
ceived  by  him  in  April  or  May,  1910,  the  statement  is  incorrect;  letter 
shown  me  does  not  look  like  my  letter  “B,”  but  presume  it  is,  possibly 


Made  up  mind  to  go  to  St.  Louis  after  discussing  subject  with  Browne -  727 

Made  up  my  mind  if  Democrats  were  to  vote  for  Lorimer  I  would  be  one  of 
them;  I  had  a  personal  reason;  Sheriff  Barrett,  a  Democrat,  was  sick  and 
was  a  close  friend  of  mine;  Lorimer  called  on  him  and  Barrett  said  to  me, 
“That’s  one  of  my  best  friends,”  etc.,  “  and  any  time  you  have  a  chance 

to  bestow  any  favor  on  Lorimer  wish  you  would  do  it” .  720 

May  have  written  letters  to  Link  and  Beckemeyer  with  reference  to  a 

banquet  for  Browne .  -•  735 

Met  Clark  by  accident  while  this  matter  was  being  investigated  in  Spring- 
field,  think  earlier  than  the  28th  of  April,  but  that  week;  met  Becke¬ 
meyer  same  day . . .  734 

Met  Shephard  in  Chicago  one  Sunday;  can  not  give  date;  Dawson  and  I 
went  to  Briggs  House  and  met  Shephard  in  lobby;  if  that  was  after  Tier¬ 
ney  had  been  there  no  doubt  he  brought  up  the  subject .  739 

My  absence  from  Chicago  was  not  for  purpose  of  avoiding  serving  of  a  sub- 


Never  paid  White,  Link,  Beckemeyer,  Holstlaw,  or  any  other  member  of 
the  assembly  any  money  at  any  time  to  vote  for  Lorimer,  or  because  they 

or  anybody  else  had  voted  for  Lorimer .  743 

No  one  requested  me  to  go  to  St.  Louis .  729 

Presume  it  was  the  14th  I  left  Chicago;  Browne  was  not  sick;  he  may  have 

been  recovering . _ . . .  725 

Prior  to  26th  May  probably  I  talked  to  some  about  voting  for  Lorimer; 

Browne  may  have  talked  to  me  about  it;  no  recollection  of  it.... .  720 

Probably  said  before  the  grand  jury  that  I  notified  southern  Illinois  mem- 


Quinlan  did  not  meet  me  at  Perry  Street  and  hand  me  a  bag  day  I  left. . . .  719 

Reside  4025  Perry  Street,  Chicago .  717 

Sometimes  Browne’s  secretary  writes  for  me .  738 

Southern  Illinois  members  I  was  well  acquainted  with  were  Clark,  Link, 

and  Beckemeyer . - .  721 

Tippit  end  I  did  not  associate  with  much . 722 

Tippit  had  given  his  followers  a  banquet  prior  to  adjournment  of  the  session 

in  Springfield .  727 

To  best  recollection  could  not  say  I  saw  Browne  on  day  of  July  14  before 
leaving  for  St.  Louis  on  that  night;  think  I  saw  him  a  few  days  previous 
and  dare  say  I  discussed  with  him  trip  to  St.  Louis;  he  knew  I  was 

going . 726 

Voted  for  Lorimer  May  26,  1909;  that  was  first  vote  I  cast  for  him;  had  then 


Louis  in  July,  1909,  but  met  there  in  August  about  23d  or  24th. .  727 

ent  to  St.  Louis  and  arrived  on  morning  15th  of  July,  1909;  registered  at 
Southern  Hotel;  room  had  bathroom  connected;  left  St.  Louis  at  noon 


Went  to  St.  Louis  to  see  some  of  the  southern  Illinois  members  of  the  house 

to  see  about  banquet  for  Browne . . .  727 

When  I  got  to  St.  Louis  and  met  members  named  I  discussed  banquet -  729 

White’s  statement  I  handed  him  a  package  containing  $900  is  not  correct; 

did  not  give  him  any  money .  733 

Wilson,  Robert  J.,  Chicago,  Ill.,  testimony  of . . . - .  675 

Can  not  tell  where  Robert  E.  Wilson  is;  last  saw  him,  I  think,  the  17th, 


Do  not  know  how  he  left  the  city,  if  he  did  leave  on  17th;  met  him  at 
Irving  Park  and  Perry  Street  around  12  o’clock,  and  nodded  to  him,  and 

he  took  Irving  Park  street  car  east .  676 

Have  not  heard  anything  from  Robert  E.  Wilson  since  17th  of  September. .  676 


792 


INDEX. 


Wilson,  Robert  J. — Continued.  Pagej 

Knew  very  little  of  Robert  E.  Wilson  for  many  years;  he  has  a  room  at  my 
home,  and  can  go  into  that  room  without  my  knowing  it*  thought  he 
would  be  home  this  week . [m  & 

Wilson,  Robert  E.,  is  in  real  estate  business,  Casey  and  he  together*  do 

not  know  whether  full  partners . .  ’  676 

Wilson,  Robert  E.,  is  my  son;  he  resides  same  number  *1  do,  4025  Perry 

Wilson,  Robert  E.,  is  unmarried;  eyes  "been  bothering  him  "for  quite  a 
while,  moie  since  July  and  August,  I  think;  no  mail  has  come  to  him 

iiiici l  JL  aiiow  oi .  07G  077 

Wilson,  Robert  E.,  was  at  one  time  at  Milwaukee  under  doctor’s  treatment  ’  ; 

tor  his  eyes;  eyes  in  bad  shape  when  I  last  saw  him .  676 

Wilson,  Robert  E.,  was  in  Milwaukee,  I  should  judge,  between  two  and 
three  weeks .  ^ 

Wilson,  alleged  payment  of  money  by,  to  members  of  asseinbiy  denied  bv  him 
and  committee  do  not  find  fact  established  (Report,  14). 

Woods,  Katherine  A.,  cigar  stand,  Elmer  Hotel,  East  St.  Louis,  Ill.,  testimony 

°t . . - . . . _  524  f 

About  Centennial  week  in  St.  Louis  last  year  White  said  to  me,  “  I  "have 
got  it  in  for  Lorimer  and  his  bunch,  and  they  will  have  to  come  across  or 
I  will  make  them  pay  dearly  for  it;  have  spent  $5,000  this  session  having 

good  time  and  looking  up  the  dope  on  them,”  etc .  °  528 

Do  typewriting  some . .  528 ' 

First  detailed  this  conversation  to  E.  C.  Singers",  9th  of*  May"  PRO*  he  "is 

editor  of  East  St.  Louis  paper .  ’  528  530 

First  Imew  White  just  before  he  was  elected  to  assembly;  met  him  and  went 
to  dinner  with  him  once  latter  part  of  October,  1909f  went  to  amusements 
with  him  three  times  in  St.  Louis;  occasions  given,  in  1909  and  1910. . .  525,  526 
t  irst  occasion  I  refer  to,  White  told  me  he  was  writing  history  of  his  life  and 
of  Illinois  Legislature;  that  he  expected  to  make  a  fortune  out  of  it  and 
Lorimer  bunch  would  have  to  pay  him  enough  to  keep  him  rest  of  his  life 

or  he  would  make  it  hot  for  Lorimer .  527 

First  occasion,  1909,  White  also  said  he  was  going  to  run  for  Congress  etc. 
and  he  had  spent  $3,000  and  lot  of  time  making  history  of  his  life  and  of 
legislature,  and  he  was  going  to  get  it  back;  I  told  him  he  would  land  in 

penitentiary,  etc .  527 

Have  a  younger  sister  working  for  me .  *  ’  *  523 

Have  known  White  last  two  years;  he  frequently  spent  hours  in  my  stand.  525 
Knew  Congressman  Rodenberg;  did  not  tell  him  White  was  going  to  get  him  529 

Lived  m  East  St.  Louis  all  my  life . . .  525 

Met  P.  H.  O’Donnell  at  hotel,  my  home  town,  and  talked  about  this  matter"; 
others  came  and  talked  about  it;  we  went  to  Flannigan’s  office;  met  For¬ 
rest . . .  530 

Testified  to  the  Centennial  week  conversation  in  both  Browne  trials. . . . ! !  528 

u  as  never  intimate  with  White .  “  *  529 

W  hite  told  me  he  had  spent  $2,000  or  $3,000  taking  lake  trips;  did  not  sav 

with  whom. . . .  . 528  530 

^  hite  told  me,  “I  have  rich  people  helping  me,  and  they  will  take  care  of 
me,  I  have  killed  two  men — a  white  man  and  a  nigger— -down  South,  and 

nothing  happened  to  me,”  etc .  527  528  529 

M  hite  walked  home  with  me  one  evening,  and  he  told  me  in  front  of  mv 
house  he  had  been  in  Chicago  several  times  and  I  should  watch  Chicago 
papers,  for  he  was  going  to  make  out  of  Lorimer  bunch  enough  to  live 

comfortably;  was  going  on  trip  to  Europe,  etc .  527 

Wrignt,  Edwin  R.,  president  Illinois  Federation  of  Labor,  testimony  of .  345 

Have  known  W  hite  between  three  and  four  years .  346 

Have  voted  for  Republicans,  Democrats,  and  Socialists,  without  regard  to 

party;  vote  for  the  man .  347 

Positions  I  have  held . 346  347 

White  had  conversation  with  me,  think  23d  October,  1909*,  reference "to  pub- 
lication  of  his  experience  in  legislature  (conversation  with  White  with 
reference  to  disposition  of  his  story  given) . .  346 


INDEX. 


793 


Page. 

Zentner,  Fred,  traveling  salesman,  testimony  of  .... . . . .  o37n 

As  to  what  took  place  at  the  hotel  Aug.  19,  drinking,  etc  . . . -  - . 

Conversation  repeated  to  committee;  do  not  know  whether  the  conversa¬ 
tion  was  reduced  to  writing;  saw  it  in  the  newspaper  after  we  went  on 

. . . . . . . . . 

Do  not  think  White  was  drunk  when  he  landed  in  Chicago,  19th  of  August; 

the  three  of  us  had  been  drinking . - -  •  °39’  o42>  °43>  544 

Exhibit  1-X  K.  F.  L.,  from  testimony  of  Zentner  in  People  v.  Browne,  read  ^ 

Immediately  prior  to  this  conversation  I  had  been  on  lake  trip  with  Browne 

and  White;  had  made  two  trips  with  them  . j ; 

In  conversation  I  said  to  White,  “You  wouldn’t  do  that  to  Browne  would 
you?”  White  responded,  “I  am  looking  out  for  White  and  Browne 

wouldn’t  have  to  stand  for  it” . - . . -  ?3° 

Testified  to  this  conversation  at  both  Browne  trials . - . -  -  -  -  -  oa»,  o 6\t 

Testified  to  these  facta  first  trial  of  Peoples  Browne,  and  to  same  thing  at 

second  trial . . . * .  ’  caq 

Testimony  that  came  out  in  the  papers  was  inaccurate  ..............  o 

This  conversation  was  somewhere  between  half  past  11  and  1;  bar  closed  ^ 

Was  present  at  conversation  Briggs  House  bar  in  which  Stermer,  White,  and 
I  participated;  in  the  conversation  White  said  he  was  going  to  take  a  big 
trip  in  fall  and  winter;  in  reply  to  statement  he  must  have  a  lot  of  money 
’White  said,  “  I  don’t  have  to  have  a  lot  of  money,  but  am  going  to  get  it 

without  work ,  ”  etc . 

Was  very  friendly  to  Browne . 

When  in  Chicago  live  at  Briggs  House . . . -  - . • ;;  0,50 

White  said  in  the  conversation,  “Lonmer  bunch  and  Browne  have  got  to 
come  across;  I  got  the  worst  of  it  at  Springfield,  etc.;  if  I  say  I  got  money 
for  voting  for  Lorimer  I  guess  they  will  come  over . 


543 


538 

540 


» 

*3.3*/.  773 

/yW.  3  <L 

uX  5 


61st  Congress, 
3d  Session. 


} 


SENATE. 


Kept.  942, 
Part  3. 


CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM 

LORIMER. 


January  9,  1911.— Ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.  Beveridge,  from  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  sub¬ 
mitted  the  following 

VIEWS. 

[To  accompany  S.  Res.  247.] 

I  can  not  concur  with  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  committee. 
To  my  mind  the  testimony  is  conclusive  that  far  more  than  enough 
bribery  was  practiced  in  this  election  to  invalidate  the  same,  even 
under  the  Senate  precedents  upon  which  the  majority  rely. 

THE  FACTS. 


The  majority  report  itself  declares  that  “  four  members  of  the  gen¬ 
eral  assembly  testified  to  receiving  money  as  a  consideration  for  their 
votes.”  Each  of  these  men  did  so  testify  repeatedly. 

Senator  Holstlaw  testified  that  he  received  his  money  from  his 
fellow  senator,  Broderick,  at  two  different  times,  the  first  installment 
being  $2,500,  and  the  second  amount  being  $700. 

Representatives  Beckemeyer,  White,  and  Link  testified  to  having 
received  their  money  from  their  fellow  representative  and  factional 
leader,  Browne,  and  from  Leader  Browne’s  lieutenant,  their  fellow 

representative,  Wilson.  .  . 

Like  Senator  Holstlaw,  these  three  representatives  received  their 

money  also  in  two  installments,  the  first  being  $1,000  and  the 

second  $900.  _  ,  .  ,  ,  ,  a  , 

It  is  of  corroborative  importance  that  the  dates  when  Senator 

Holstlaw  received  his  two  installments  from  his  fellow  senator,  Brod¬ 
erick  are  practically  the  same  dates  on  which  the  house  members  re¬ 
ceived  their  two  installments  from  their  fellow  representatives, 

Browne  and  Wilson.  .  .  . 

Now  comes  an  undisputed  fact  of  conclusive  force,  although  the 

majority  report  ignores  it.  These  confessed  bribe  takers  were  shown 
to  have  had  in  their  possession,  in  bills  of  large  denominations, 


2 


CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OE  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


h^rSdlh S”  aft6r  the  dat6S  Wh6n  th6y  SW°re  t0 

and*dLfnterested°w^tnesses^e  UnCOntradicted  testim™y  of  impartial 

For  example,  on  the  very  day  that  confessing  bribe-taking  Senator 
Holstlaw  received  his  first  installment  of  $2,500  in  currency  of  laro-e 
denominations  from  his  fellow  senator,  Broderick,  in  Chicago  he 
personally  deposited  that  very  amount  in  the  State  Bank  of  Chicago 

theCcashder  of  heSStaete0Blni ti0?  P,  ™S  is  Proved  Mr-  Newton. 

“"State  Bank  of  Chicago,  who  personally  received 

this  $-,500  from  Holstlaw  in  currency  of  large  denominations  It  is 

transaction. the  bank’S  regUkr  deP°"t  sliP  formally  "shZngdiis 

Again,  Representative  White,  under  the  same  circumstance®  was 
seen  in  possession  of  unusual  sums  of  money  in  bills  of  large  denomi- 

v  Ts’  J  L'O'T  by  tbe  uncontradicted  testimony  of  Miss 
Yandeyeer,  White’s  bookkeeper;  Mr.  Dennis,  a  business  associate;  and 
Mr.  Kirkpatrick,  an  employee  of  the  store  where  White  deposited 
several  hundred  dollars.  These  three  impartial  witnesses  saw  the 
one,i  and  swear  that  it  was  in  bills  of  large  denominations. 
Representative  Beckemeyer,  under  the  same  circumstances  de¬ 
posited  $o00  in  a  bank  at  Belle  Isle,  Ill.,  although  he  did  not  live  at 
Belle  Isle  and  had  to  be  identified  at  the  bank.  This  is  proved  bv  the 
uncontradicted  testimony  of  James  Gray,  a  business  man  of  Belle 

Isle,  who  identified  Representative  Beckemeyer  at  the  bank  at  the 
tatter  s  request. 

Mr.  Gray  saw  the  money  and  swears  that  it  was  in  bills  of  large 
denominations,  twice  mentioning  a  $100  bill.  The  size  of  the  bill 
and  indeed  the  whole  transaction,  seems  to  have  impressed  Mr.  Gray’ 
lor  lie  asked  Representative  Beckemeyer  where  he  got  it 
The  subcommittee  refused  to  permit  Mr.  Gray  to  tell  Mr  Becke- 
me>Yrs  answer.  It  appears  that  two  other  gentlemen— Mr.  Ford 
and  Mr.  Murray— would  have  testified  to  the  same  facts  to  which  the 
committee  would  not  permit  Mr.  Gray  to  testify,  but  under  this 
ruling  of  the  committee  both  Mr.  Ford  and  Mr.  Murray  were 
abandoned  as  witnesses.  J 

Of  the  four  men  who  repeatedly  testified  to  having  received  this  bribe 
money,  only  Link  was  not  shown  to  have  been  seen  with  the  cash. 
But  Link  repeatedly  testified  under  oath  at  various  times  that  he  did 

31V?  I1*6  same  .amounts  of  money  under  the  same  circumstances 
and  at  the  same  times  and  places  where  his  fellow  members  received 
theirs.  And  this  repeated  testimony  of  Link’s  is  corroborated  as  to 
circumstances  by  the  testimony  of  the  others. 

The  majority  attack  the  confession  under  oath  of  these  bribe  takers 
upon  various  grounds.  For  example,  the  majority  report  savs,  or  at 
least  strongly  implies,  that  three  of  them  were  “  compelled  ”  or 

,  drVenffl  t0  ma,k?  tb?se  s'™rn  confessions  because  of  their  treatment 
by  the  officers  of  justice  of  Cook  County  and  Sangamon  County,  Ill., 

who  were  investigating  this  and  other  transactions  before  the  grand 
juries  of  those  counties.  6 

The  majority  lay  great  stress  upon  the  testimony  of  bribe-taker 
Link  as  to  his  treatment  by  State’s  Attorney  Wayman  and  his  assist¬ 
ants.  State  s  Attorneys  Arnold  and  Marshall,  and  the  officers  in 
charge  of  Link  in  connection  with  the  grand-jury  proceedings  in 


CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


3 


Cook  County,  before  which  grand  jury  Link  finally  made  his  full 
confession  under  oath.  The  language  of  the  majority  suggests  sym¬ 
pathy  for  bribe-taker  Link  under  this  treatment  and  condemnation 
for  the  officers  of  justice  whom  Link  says  subjected  him  to  it. 

But  Link’s  theatrical  account  of  what  he  calls  the  “  third  degree  ” 
to  which  he  was  subjected  is  explained  by  the  testimony  of  State’s 
Attorney  Wayman.  For  example,  in  the  matter  of  being  placed  in 
the  custody  of  an  officer  in  Chicago  and  to  and  at  his  home  after¬ 
wards,  it  actually  appears  that  Link  was  very  glad  to  have  the  officer 
with  him  for  protection,  if  indeed,  Link  himself  did  not  ask  that  an 
officer  be  sent  with  him. 

The  men  of  whom  Link  most  bitterly  complains  are  Assistant 
State’s  Attorneys  Arnold  and  Marshal,  particularly  the  former.  Yet 
the  committee  did  not  subpoena  these  officers  of  justice  to  give  their 
account  of  Link’s  story,  although  they  were  residents  of  Chicago,  in 
which  the  hearing  was  held. 

The  majority  seem  to  think  that  the  remarkable  so-called  third- 
degree  story  told  by  Link  actually  “  compelled  ”  him  to  testify  to  a 
falsehood  in  confessing  his  bribery  both  before  the  grand  jury  and 
before  the  subcommittee.  If  so,  it  was  important  that  Arnold  and 
Marshall  should  give  their  account.  Yet  they  were  not  called.  If 
not — if  Link  testified  to  the  truth  when  he  swore  before  the  sub¬ 
committee,  as  well  as  before  the  grand  jury,  that  he  received  this 
bribe  money — why  is  the  majority  so  concerned  about  Link’s  third- 
degree  melodrama  ? 

The  majority  report  ignores  one  reason  that  Link  repeatedly  gave 
for  denying  that  he  met  Browne  and  Wilson  and  got  the  bribe 
money  from  them.  Link  swears  that  he  made  this  denial  because 
he  did  not  wish  to  get  his  “  friends  in  trouble.”  Who  were  these 
friends  whom  Link  was  so  afraid  of  “  getting  in  trouble,”  that,  to  pro¬ 
tect  them  as  well  as  himself,  he  at  first  committed  perjury  by  denying 
having  met  Browne  and  Wilson  and  getting  money  from  them? 

But  after  all,  this  phase  of  the  case  upon  which  the  majority  lays 
such  emphatic  emphasis  is  not  material  unless  the  Senate  believes 
these  confessed  bribe  takers  did  not  tell  the  truth  in  their  repeated 
statements  under  oath  that  they  actually  did  receive  this  bribe 
money,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  were  “  compelled  ”  or  “  driven,” 
as  the  majority  say,  to  this  repeated  perjury  by  the  conduct  of  the 
State’s  attorney  and  his  assistants. 

What  the  Senate  must  determine  is  whether  it  believes,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  that  these  men  actually  did  receive  the  money  which  they  tes¬ 
tified  to  having  received,  and  large  amounts  of  which  were  found  in 
their  possession  in  bills  of  large  denominations  about  the  time  they 
testified  to  having  received  it.  This  is  the  question  before  us — not 
the  conduct  of  the  officers  of  justice. 

Upon  this  point  the  testimony  convinces  me  that  “  four  members 
of  the  general  assembly  which  elected  Mr.  Lorimer  ”  who  “  testified 
to  receiving  money  as  a  consideration  for  their  votes,”  actually  did 
receive  such  money. 

If  they  actually  did  receive  such  money,  from  whom  did  they 
receive  it?  They  testify  that  they  received  it  from  their  fellow 
representative  and  factional  leader,  Browne,  and  his  lieutenant  ;  their 
fellow  representative,  Wilson;  and  from  Broderick,  the  fellow  sena¬ 
tor  of  Holstlaw. 


4  CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

If  they  did  receive  it  from  these  men,  these  three  bribe  givers 
are  as  guilty  as  the  four  bribe  takers.  In  law  bribery  includes  the 
giving  as  well  as  the  receiving  of  bribes,  and  the  bribers  are  equally 
culpable  with  the  bribed.  In  morals  these  bribe  givers  are  even  more 
culpable  than  the  bribe  takers,  because  they  were  men  of  greater 
influence,  intelligence,  and  force  of  character. 

The  majority  report  exonerates  these  three  accused  bribe  givers 
upon  the  ground,  chiefly,  that  they  denied  the  accusation.  What  else 
did  the  majority  expect  these  accused  bribe  givers  to  do  except  to 
deny  that  they  gave  the  bribe?  What  else  could  they  have  done  un¬ 
less  they,  too,  confessed? 

Did  the  majority  expect  everybody  concerned  with  these  corrupt 
proceedings  to  confess? 

Is  bribe  giving  to  be  proved  only  by  the  sworn  confession  of  the 
bribe  givers  ?  Is  not  the  law  settled,  clear,  and  conclusive  that  bribery 
may  be  and  often  must  be  proved  by  circumstantial  evidence  ? 

It  would  be  a  rare  case  where  any  culprit  could  be  convicted  before 
a  jury  of  bribery  or  conspiracy  to  bribe  if  the  courts  should  take  the 
view  of  the  law  taken  by  the  majority  of  the  committee. 

Why  did  Browne  take  the  long  journey  to  St.  Louis  to  meet  his 
fellow  members,  who  testified  that  they  received  their  bribe  money 
from  Browne  at  St.  Louis?  Browne  lived  at  the  other  end  of  the 
State.  His  excuse  that  he  went  to  St.  Louis  to  talk  politics  to  these 
men  is  absurd. .  It  had  been  hardly  three  weeks  since  he  had  seen 
them  at  the  legislature  in  Springfield,  where  he  had  been  in  constant 
communication  with  them  for  months. 

The  campaign  about  which  he  says  he  went  to  see  them  did  not 
occur  for  more  than  a.  year  in  the  future.  And  having  taken  this 
long  and  disagreeable  journey  to  meet  these  men  in  St.  Louis  about 
the  campaign  a  year  in  the  future,  he  remained  there  only  between 
trains,  arriving  about  8  or  9  in  the  morning  and  leaving  at  noon. 

The  explanations  of  Wilson  are  fully  as  bad  or  worse.  And  Brod¬ 
erick  had  no  explanation  at  all  as  to  why  Holstlaw,  who  never  be¬ 
fore  had  visited  Broderick’s  saloon  at  Chicago,  should  come  from  his 
home  in  the  country  town  of  Iuka  and  go  a  mile  and  a  half  from  the 
railroad  station  in  Chicago  to  Broderick’s  saloon,  which  is  across  the 
bridge  on  the  West  Side. 

According  to  bribe-giver  Broderick,  bribe-taker  Holstlaw  merely 
came  to  Broderick’s  saloon  in  Chicago  just  to  visit,  without  any  rea¬ 
son  whatever.  Yet  he  had  never  done  such  a  thing  before.  He  never 
frequented  saloons.  On  important  points  Broderick  refused  to  tes¬ 
tify  on  the  ground  that  he  might  incriminate  himself. 

And  note  this:  Both  times  that  Holstlaw  made  these  visits  to  the 
saloon  of  his  fellow  senator,  Broderick,  in  Chicago,  were  about  the 
same  times  that  his  fellow  bribe  takers  were  receiving  bribe  money 
from  their  fellow  representatives,  Browne  and  Wilson,  in  St.  Louis. 

The  failure  of  these  three  witnesses,  Browne,  Wilson,  and  Brod¬ 
erick,  to  appear  before  the  subcommittee  at  the  time  they  were  sub¬ 
poenaed  ;  the  successful  efforts  made  by  his  counsel  to  delay  the 
testimony  of  Broderick;  the  explanation  of  Wilson  and  Browne  as 
to  their  nonappearance  are  significant. 

They  are  almost  as  unreasonable  as  are  Browne  and  Wilson’s 
grotesque  excuses  for  their  meeting  the  three  bribe-taking  representa¬ 
tives  in  St.  Louis,  or  as  Broderick’s  novel  account  of  the  bribe-taking 


CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


5 


Senator  Holstlaw  coming  from  his  village  home  out  in  the  State  and 
unexpectedly  visiting  his  saloon  on  the  West  Side  without  any 
reason  whatever. 

In  short,  the  testimony  is  overwhelming  and  conclusive,  not  only 
that  four  members  of  the  general  assembly  who  participated  in  this 
election  were  bribed,  but  that  three  of  their  fellow  members  of  the 
general  assembly  paid  them  their  money. 

I  am  not  able  to  follow  the  mental  processes  which  can  concede 
that  these  four  bribe  takers  got  their  bribe  money,  and  yet  they  did 
not  receive  it  from  their  three  fellow  members  whom  the  four  bribe 
takers  testified  had  paid  it  to  them  and  whom  it  is  conceded  that  the 
four  bribe  takers  met  under  circumstances  not  reasonably  explained. 

If  the  confessed  bribe  takers  did  receive  this  bribe  money,  from 
whom  did  they  receive  it  if  not  from  their  fellow  members  who 
admit  having  met  the  bribe  takers  when  and  where  the  latter  testify 
that  they  did  receive  the  bribe  money  from  these  accused  bribe 
givers  ? 

So  the  evidence  convinces  me  that  at  least  seven  tainted  votes  were 
cast  in  this  election. 

But  these  seven  votes,  which  under  the  statute  and  the  precedents 
are  enough  to  invalidate  this  election,  were  not  all  of  the  tainted 
votes  cast  in  this  putrid  transaction.  The  testimony  shows  that  at 
least  three  additional  corrupt  votes  were  cast — those  of  Clark,  Shep¬ 
hard,  and  Luke. 

While  Shephard  and  Clark  did  not  confess,  and  Luke,  who  is  dead, 
could  not  confess,  the  evidence  convicts  them  of  having  shared  the 
plunder  at  the  same  times  and  places — from  the  same  hands  and  for 
the  same  consideration  as  their  fellow  members  who  repeatedly  tes¬ 
tified  to  having  received  it,  and  who  were  afterwards  shown  to  be  in 
possession  of  it. 

It  is  conceded  that  these  three  members,  Clark,  Shephard,  and 
Luke,  belonged  to  the  faction  and  were  the  followers  of  their  fellow 
representative  and  factional  leader,  Browne.  It  is  conceded  that  all 
of  them  met  Browne  and  his  lieutenant,  Wilson,  by  appointment  in 
St.  Louis  at  the  same  hotel  and  at  the  same  time  that  the  confessed 
bribe  takers  are  conceded  to  have  met  Browne  and  Wilson. 

Luke’s  wife  testified  that  along  about  this  time  Luke  came  home 
and  showed  her  $950  in  bills  of  large  denominations,  without  saying 
where  he  got  it.  The  committee  declined  to  permit  testimony  as  to 
Luke’s  statement  concerning  this  money  and  his  visit  to  St.  Louis. 

I  think  this  ruling  was  in  direct  conflict  with  the  ruling  on  the 
same  point  in  the  Clark  case.  Still,  without  this  excluded  testimony, 
the  evidence,  taken  all  together,  shows  that  Luke  got  the  money  in 
the  same  amounts  and  from  the  same  sources  and  in  the  same  places 
at  the  same  time  that  the  confessed  bribe  takers  got  theirs. 

Representative  Shephard  met  his  fellow  representative  and  fac¬ 
tional  leader,  Browne,  and  his  fellow  representative,  Browne’s  lieu¬ 
tenant,  Wilson,  at  St.  Louis,  at  the  same  time,  in  the  same  room  of 
the  same  hotel  where  his  three  fellow  representatives  who  repeatedly 
confessed  to  having  received  this  money  from  Browne  and  Wilson  at 
those  times  and  places. 

The  testimony  shoAvs  that  Wilson  paid  at  least  some  of  this  bribe 
money  to  the  bribe  takers  in  the  bathroom  of  his  hotel  room.  White 
swears  that  he,  himself,  was  called  into  the  bathroom  by  Wilson,  and 


6  CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

was  there  paid  his  second  installment  of  $900.  White  swears  that  he 
heard  TV  ilson  call  Shephard  into  the  same  bathroom,  from  which  they 
shortly  emerged. 

.  Shephard  himself  admits  that  he  was  there  and  that  Wilson  called 
him  into  the  bathroom,,  but  only  to  ask  him  the  name  of  a  lady 
Shephard  dined  with  in  Springfield  almost  two  months  before. 
Shephard  admits  having  visited  a  safety  deposit  box  which  he  had 
rented  in  St.  Louis  the  very  same  forenoon  that  he  met  Wilson  at 
the  hotel,  and  was  called  by  Wilson  into  the  bathroom. 

Shephard’s  only  excuse  for  visiting  St.  Louis  on  this  interesting 
occasion  was  that  he  made  the  journey  to  get  some  packing  for  his 
automobile.  This  was  a  remarkable  excursion  for  a  banker  and 
business  man.  We  are  asked  to  believe  that  Shephard’s  meefing 
with  fellow  representative,  Wilson,  at  St.  Louis  at  this  lucrative  con¬ 
ference  was  a  pure  accident,  a  mere  coincidence. 

Apparently  the  majority  of  the  committee  do  so  believe. 

If  we  credit  Shephard’s  testimony  our  indignant  sympathy  is 
aroused  for  this  victim  of  one  of  these  malign' "tangles  of  circum¬ 
stances  and  events  which  sometimes  entrap  the  most  virtuous  of  men. 

But  regardless  of  whether  or  not  Shephard  got  any  money  for 
his  vote  he  was  bribed  to  vote  for  Lorimer  by  the  promise  of  influence 
concerning  an  office.  I  his  bribery  was  arranged  and  consummated 
between  Shephard  and  Lorimer  himself.  Shephard  himself  declares 
that,  “  rock-ribbed  Democrat”  as  he  was,  the  promise  of  Lorimer’s 
influence  concerning  a  post  office  was  “the  consideration”  for  his 
vote. 

Of  course,  in  law  this  is  quite  as  much  bribery  as  if  Lorimer  had 
paid  him  cash  in  hand.  On  this  the  authorities  are  unanimous. 

Representative  Clark  also  met  his  fellow  representative  and  fac¬ 
tional  leader,  Browne,  and  his  fellow  representative,  Wilson,  Browne’s 
lieutenant,  at  St.  Louis  in  the  same  room  of  the  same  hotel,  at  the  same 
times  that  his  fellow  members  who  confessed  to  taking  bribes  at  those 
times  and  places  met  Browne  and  Wilson.  Also,  like  the  others, 
Clark  met  Browne  and  Wilson  in  St.  Louis  at  the  latter’s  request. 

But  Mr.  Clark  says  that  he  did  not  receive  any  money  on  either  of 
these  occasions.  He  sticks  to  the  story  that  Browne  did  nothing  but 
just  talk  on  the  first  occasion.  Browne  says  that  this  talk  was  about 
“  politics.”  Clark  says  that  his  interview  with  Wilson  on  the  second 
occasion  was  more  or  less  miscellaneous.  Yet  both  Browne  and  Wil¬ 
son  made  long  and  uncomfortable  trips  for  a  brief  period  of  such 
conversation  with  Clark. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  Clark  was  a  police  magistrate  in  a  fair¬ 
sized  country  town.  As  such  he  was  better  schooled  than  his  fellow- 
members  in  the  effectiveness  of  stout  denial  and  persistent  avoidance 
of  damaging  admissions.  Indeed,  we  find  Clark  almost  the  firmest  and 
cleverest  of  the  conspirators  who  were  resolving  and  arranging  to 
stand  pat  in  their  denials. 

Yet  Clark,  police  magistrate  of  a  country  town,  purchased  dia¬ 
monds  during  the  session  of  the  legislature,  for  which  he  paid  after 
the  legislature  adjourned.  Taken  in  connection  with  all  the  testi¬ 
mony  in  this  case,  the  testimony  of  Clark  himself  convinces  me  that 
he  was  as  guilty  as  the  others. 

If  the  Senate  conclude  that  these  three  men,  Luke,  Shephard,  and 
Clark,  also  received  this  bribe  money  we  have  10  tainted  votes  cast  in 


CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 


7 


this  election,  or  4  more  than  enough  to  invalidate  the  same  even  under 
the  precedents  which  the  majority  cite.  With  these  10  putrid  votes 
I  shall  stop,  although  the  evidence  also  entangles  one  other.  So,  if 
there  were  10  votes,  or  even  if  only  7  votes  were  corrupt,  what  is  their 
legal  effect  on  the  election  involved  ? 

THE  LAW. 

To  elect,  the  statute  in  terms  requires  “  a  majority  of  all  the  votes 
of  the  joint  assembly,  a  majority  of  all  the  members  elected  to  both 
houses  being  present  and  voting.”  The  number  of  votes  that  con¬ 
stituted  the  joint  assembly  that  elected  Mr.  Lorimer  was  202.  “A 
majority  of  all  ”  these  votes  was  102.  Mr.  Lorimer  received  108,  or 
6  more  than  “a  majority  of  all  votes  of  said  joint  assembly.” 

But  at  least  7  of  these  were  tainted.  This  leaves  101  votes  for  Mr. 
Lorimer,  or  one  less  than  “  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  of  said  joint 
assembly,”  as  required  by  the  specific  words  of  thp  statute. 

If  to  these  7  corrupt  votes,  the  Senate  concludes  that  the  3  votes  of 
Representatives  Luke,  Clark,  and  Shephard  should  be  added,  there 
were  10  tainted  votes  that  went  to  make  up  the  entire  108  that  Mr. 
Lorimer  received. 

Deducting  these  10  from  this  108  leaves  98  untainted  votes  for 
Mr.  Lorimer,  or  4  less  than  “  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  of  said  joint 
assembly.” 

All  this  is  true,  even  admitting  the  soundness  of  the  Senate  prece¬ 
dents  cited  by  the  committee.  These  precedents  are  that  no  matter 
how  many  votes  were  bribed,  yet  if  there  was  a  majority  of  unbribed 
votes,  the  election  is  valid. 

In  the  present  case  there  was  not  an  unbribed  “  majority  of  all  the 
votes  of  said  joint  assembly.”  There  was  at  least  one  vote  less  than 
an  untainted  majority.  Including  Clark,  Shephard,  and  Luke  as 
corrupt,  there  were  four  votes  less  than  an  untainted  majority.  So 
the  election  was  invalid — it  never  legally  occurred. 

If  it  is  said  that  these  untainted  votes  must  be  expunged  and  con¬ 
sidered  as  never  having  been  cast,  the  answer  is,  in  the  words  of  the 
statute  itself,  that  they  were  “  present  and  voting.” 

The  only  reasonable  and  legal  position  is  that  those  tainted  votes 
actually  were  “present  and  voting,”  a  part  of  the  joint  assembly; 
but  because  their  votes  were  tainted  they  are  not  to  be  counted  for  the 
candidate  for  whom  they  corruptly  voted.  They  were  a  part  of  the 
joint  assembly  present  and  voting  because  this  was  the  case,  but  they 
are  not  to  be  counted  for  Mr.  Lorimer,  because  they  were  bribed  to 
vote  for  him. 

This  is  the  most  restricted  meaning  that  reasonably  can  be  put  on 
the  statute  and  precedents.  But  I  think  the  sound  view  is  much 
broader.  Not  only  should  these  votes  be  considered  as  “  present  and 
voting,”  which  was  the  actual  fact;  not  only  must  they  be  deducted 
i  from  the  vote  cast  for  Mr.  Lorimer  because  of  their  corruption,  but 
also  they  must  be  added  to  the  vote  against  Mr.  Lorimer. 

As  I  have  shown  above,  it  is  not  necessary  to  take  this  view  in 
order  to  invalidate  this  election.  I  take  it  merely  on  principle  as  a 
matter  of  law  when  applied  to  this  or  any  similar  case. 

All  of  these  tainted  votes  were  stanch  partisans  of  the  opposite 
party  to  Mr.  Lorimer.  For  more  than  three  months  all  of  them 


8  CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

steadily  had  voted  either  for  the  candidate  of  their  party,  nominate 
at  their  party's  primaries  by  popular  vote,  or,  at  least,'  against  an 
Republican.  None  of  them  voted  for  any  Republican  until  th 
notable  26th  of  May,  when  all  of  them  cast  their  votes  suddenly  fo 
Mr.  Lorimer  upon  the  occasion  of  his  election. 

If  they  actually  were  bought  to  cast  their  votes  for  Mr.  Lorimei 
it  follows  that  they  would  have  continued  to  vote  as  they  hithert 
had  done,  either  for  the  primary  nominee  of  their  own  party  or  a 
least  for  some  other  member  of  their  own  party.  Was  it  not  for  th 
very  purpose  of  preventing  them  from  so  voting  and  inducing  then 
to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer  that  they  were  bought?  If  not,  for  wha 
purpose  were  they  bought  ? 

And  were  they  bought  if  the  buyers  did  not  think  their  votes  wer 
necessary  ?  Is  it  possible  that  large  sums  of  money  were  spent  t< 
purchase  votes  that  were  not  needed?  Were  thousands  of  dollar 
thrown  away  and  the  risk  of  the  penitentiarv  incurred  for  nothini 
at  all? 

T\  hile,  as  I  have  shown,  it  is  not  necessary  to  a  decision  of  this  case 
yet  I  challenge  the  Senate  precedents  cited  by  the  majority  that  evei 
though  it  be  proven  that  any  number  of  votes  were  bribed,  yet  if  then 
were  a  majority  of  untainted  votes  the  election  can  not  be  questioned 

If  only  one  case  of  bribery  be  clearly  established  in  the  election  oJ 
a  Senator,  I  hold  that  this  invalidates  the  entire  election.  In  m3 
opinion,  one  act  of  bribery  makes  the  whole  election  foul. 

In  the  language  of  my  illustrious  predecessor  in  this  body,  Senatoi 
Morton,  “  Bribery  is  to  an  election  what  fraud  is  to  a  contract.” 

It  is  said  in  defense  of  these  precedents  that  it  would  be  hard  on  a 
personally  guiltless  and  successful  candidate  who  had  an  honest 
majority  if  his  election  should  be  invalidated  by  votes  corrupted  ir 
his  behalf  which  were  not  enough  in  number  to  destroy  his  honest 
majority. 

The  clear  answer  is  that  it  is  harder  on  the  people  whose  representa¬ 
tive  this  candidate  is  to  have  any  corrupt  influences  employed  in  his 
behalf. 

We  can  not  consider  the  personal  fortunes  or  even  feelings  of  a 
candidate  in  determining  the  law  of  election  cases.  The  candidate  is 
not  on  trial.  The  election  is  on  trial.  Was  the  election  pure  and 
free,  or  influenced  and  venal?  The  candidate  is  nothing;  the  people 
are  everything.  Or,  rather,  the  candidate  is  nothing,  except  as  the 
representative  of  the  people. 

Our  business  is  to  guard  the  purity  of  elections.  Our  concern  is 
to  permit  no  chances  to  be  taken.  Yet  chances  always  are  taken  under 
these  ill-considered  precedents — dangerous  chances.  For  if  a  num¬ 
ber  of  corrupt  votes  are  plainly  proven  to  be  such,  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  others  wefe  cast  equally  corrupt  which  could  not  be 
proven  to  be  such.  The  law  recognizes  no  more  difficult  task  than  that 
of  proving  bribery  or  conspiracy  to  bribe. 

And  would  this  untainted  majority  be  cast  if  the  uncorrupted  votes 
positively  knew  of  the  bribery  being  practiced  for  the  candidate  for 
whom  they  voted?  If  honest  members  of  a  legislature  innocently 
vote  for  a  candidate  for  Senator  for  whom  corrupt  members  of  the 
legislature  were  bribed  to  vote,  would  these  honest  members  have  so 
voted  had  they  known  of  this  bribery  ?  This  simple  illustration  will 


CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  9 

rove  convincingly  the  unsoundness  of  the  precedents  which  I  am 
mailing. 

So  I  propose  that  we  overthrow  such  unsound  precedents  and  es- 
iblish  a  new  Senate  precedent,  that  one  act  of  bribery  in  the  election 
f  a  Senator  makes  such  an  election  void — makes  an  election  foul. 

The  public  welfare,  the  theory  of  free  and  fair  elections,  which  it 
,  our  sole  business  to  safeguard,  and  which  is  the  reason  and  origin 
f  the  power  we  are  now  exercising,  requires  the  establishment  of 
lis  new  Senate  precedent. 

We  should  in  this  case  establish  the  law  of  the  Senate  in  conformity 
'ith  the  ancient  common  law.  We  should  declare  that  one  act  of 
ribery  makes  a  whole  election  foul. 

This  pronouncement  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  would  pre- 
ent  an  ambitious  and  wealthy  candidate  from  perpetrating  bribery 
>  make  his  election  sure  and  doing  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  cover  up 
is  tracks.  It  would  give  a  needed  pause  to  corrupt  interests  that 
ndertake  to  make  the  election  of  their  favorites  certain  by  corrupt 
ractices.  It  absolutely  would  prevent  overzealous  friends,  inspired 
y  nothing  but  the  heat  of  battle  and  devotion  to  their  favorite,  from 
ndertaking  to  secure  his  success  by  infamous  methods. 

If  we  make  a  new  Senate  precedent  that  one  act  of  bribery  makes 
whole  election  foul,  we  shall  have  an  end  of  the  amusing  and  over¬ 
worked  argument  of  the  improper  activities  of  too  enthusiastic 
riends  bribing  voters  for  their  favorite  without  any  other  motive 
ban  their  fanatical  and  money-sacrificing  devotion  to  him. 

The  time  has  arrived  when  we  had  much  better  take  to  heart  the 
•eople’s  unsullied  and  uninfluenced  representation  than  that  we  should 
ontinue  to  bemoan  the  possible  fate  of  a  virtuous  candidate  in 
whose  behalf  the  heinous  crime  of  bribery  has  been  practiced,  whether 
y  venal  interests  or  by  well-intentioned  but  overzealous  and  finan- 
ially  affluent  friends. 

But  waive  this  point.  The  evidence  shows  it  is  not  necessary  to  a 
lecision  of  this  case.  I  advance  it  only  because  this  body  ought  to 
stablish  now  that  one  act  of  bribery  invalidates  an  election. 

And  this  suggests  another  untenable  view  heretofore  suggested 
n  election  cases  and  which  we  should  now  decisively  negative.  This 
dew  is  that  a  single  act  of  bribery  perpetrated  or  countenanced  by  a 
>erson  elected  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  does  not  void  the 
lection,  but  only  so  taints  such  a  person  that  he  must  be  expelled. 
That  is,  if  the  sitting  Senator  personally  perpetrated  or  countenanced 
>ribery  to  secure  his  election  his  seat  can  not  be  vacated  by  a  majority 
rote,  but  he  must  be  expelled  by  a  two-thirds  vote. 

I  I  think  it  clear  that  this  view  is  wrong.  The  argument  for  it  is 
hat  the  bribing  Senator  is  guilty  only  of  a  moral  defect  which  ren- 
lers  him  unfit  to  be  a  member  of  this  body. 

It  is  as  if  such  a  Senator  had  a  contagious  disease  such  as  small- 
)OX,  or  that  he  was  dangerously  insane,  or  that  he  had  committed 
reason,  and  yet,  in  any  of  these  cases,  insisted  upon  sitting  among 
is.  In  any  of  these  cases  or  others  that  may  suggest  themselves  such 
t  member  may  be  expelled,  but  only  by  a  two-thirds  vote. 

The  reason  a  two-thirds  vote  was  provided  in  the  Constitution  to 
ixpel  a  member  was  that  the  mental,  moral,  or  physical  defect  should 
)e  so  unquestionable  that  two-thirds  of  this  body  would  be  impelled 
;o  vote  for  expulsion. 


10  CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER. 

.  And  yet  it  is  upon  these  grounds  and  these  only  that  the  argumen! 
is  made  that  a  Senator  guilty  or  knowing  of  bribery  in  his  electioi 
must  be  expelled  by  a  two-thirds  vote  rather  than  his  election  invali 
dated  by  a  majority  vote. 

This  position  is  so  dangerous  to  the  public  welfare,  so  contrary 
to  public  policy,  so  abhorrent  to  reason  and  repugnant  to  justicV 
that  I  repudiate  and  challenge  it. 

For  conceding  that  an  elected  Senator  had  a  majority  of  perfectly 
honest  votes,  would  they  have  so  cast  their  votes  if  they  had  knowr 
that  the  candidate  was  bribing  other  votes. 

Let  me  put  an  illustration  personally  to  each  Senator  here.  Sup¬ 
pose  that  we  are  electing  some  man  to  some  office  within  our  gift,! 
Suppose  that  all  but  one  of  us  were  honest  and  earnest  in  our  in¬ 
tended  \  otes  foi  this  man.  But  suppose  that  just  before  our  vote 
we  disco’\  ered  that  he  had  bribed  or  countenanced  the  bribery  of  onc! 
of  our  number.  Would  a  single  one  of  us  with  such  knowledge  vote 
for  the  man  for  whom  until  that  moment  we  had  intended  to  vote? 
Of  course  not. 

So  it  is  that  one  act  of  bribery  perpetrated  or  countenanced  by  any 
Senator  to  secure  his  election  vitiates  the  same.  It  does  not  necessi¬ 
tate  an  act  of  expulsion  requiring  a  two-thirds  vote,  but  a  resolution 
requiring  a  majority  vote  invalidating  the  election. 

Was  Mr.  Lorimer  informed  of  what  was  going  on  in  his  behalf? 
While  not  necessary  to  a  decision  of  this  case,  the  evidence  and  cir¬ 
cumstances  require  the  Senate  to  consider  this  point. 

From  his  speech  on  this  case  in  this  body  it  appears  that  Mr.  Lori¬ 
mer  is  a.  seasoned  politician  of  nearly  30  years’  experience  in  prac¬ 
tical  politics  in  one  of  the  greatest  cities  of  the  country  and  of  the 
world— a  superb  organizer  who  gives  attention  to  the  very  smallest 
details  of  any  election. 

Mr.  Lorimer  was  on  the  ground  during  practically  the  whole  ses¬ 
sion  of  this  legislature.  He  was  there  principally  for  the  purpose  of 
defeating  the  will  of  the  voters  of  his  partv  as  declared  in  the 
primary.  He  was  the  “  intimate  ”  friend  of  the  leader  of  the  oppo¬ 
site  party,  Mr.  Browne,  and  had  been  such  for  years. 

It  appeals  that  ^Mr.  Lorimer  himself  finally  developed  as  a  solu¬ 
tion  of  the  deadlock  which  he  had  precipitated  to  defeat  the  decree 
of  the  primaries  of  his  own  party.  To  secure  his  election,  he  abso¬ 
lutely  required  the  votes  of  large  numbers  of  members  of  the  general 
assembly  from  the  opposite  party. 

His  “  intimate  ”  friend  for  years,  Mr.  Browne,  who  was  the  leader 
of  the  minority  and  the  captain  of  a  faction,  became  his  needed 
assistant. 

But  even  Browne,  the  chief  of  a  minority  faction,  declined  to  per¬ 
mit  the  votes  of  his  faction  to  go  to  Mr.  Lorimer  unless  Browne  could 
be  assured  that  with  the  votes  Browne  might  get  Mr.  Lorimer  could 
get  enough  others  certainly  to  elect  him. 

With  this  understanding  and  for  this  purpose  the  two  “  intimate  ” 
friends,  Browne  and  Lorimer,  worked  together  for  at  least  10  days 
or  two  weeks.  During  this  time  they  were  in  repeated  and  almost 
continuous  conference,  night  as  well  as  day,  and  both  were  seasoned 
practical  politicians. 

If  we  believe  that  anybody  at  all  was  bribed,  the  testimony  shows 
that  it  was  during  these  fateful  10  days  or  2  weeks  that  the  bribery 


CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  WILLIAM  LORIMER.  11 

us  arranged.  If  we  believe  that  anybody  at  all  was  bribed,  the 
ddence  shows  that  Browne  was  the  chief  instrument  of  bribery. 

Taking  these  things  all  together,  did  everything  occur  that  the 
cidence  shows  to  have  occurred  without  Mr.  Lorimers  knowledge? 

Even  if  the  corruption  fund  came  from  sources  higher  up,  did 
tose  exalted  sources  of  iniquity  pass  by  Mr.  Lorimer,  whom  they 
ure  trying  to  elect  with  this  putrid  money  without  his  knowing  a 
ting  about  it? 

In  law  Mr.  Lorimer  must  be  held  to  have  knowledge  of  these 
Lnsactions  in  his  behalf. 

If  so,  I  contend  that  his  election  is  invalid  upon  this  ground.  If 
Jmators  believe  that  he  knew  and  countenanced  a  single  act  of 
1  ibery  we  need  not  conclude  that  we  must  expel  him  by  a  two-thirds 
ute.  We  need  only  to  conclude  that  his  election  was  invalid  and  so 
liclare  by  a  majority  vote. 

But  for  the  purpose  of  this  particular  case  it  is  not  necessary  to 
lise  the  question  of  Mr.  Lorimers  knowledge  of  any  bribery  in  his 
lhalf.  I  raise  it  only  because  personally  I  want  to  go  on  record 
{•ainst  the  proposition  hitherto  advanced,  that  an  act  of  bribery  by  a 
jccessful  candidate  does  not  invalidate  his  election,  but  only  taints 
ie  successful  candidate  himself. 

I  conclude  that  this  election  was  invalid  under  any  possible  view 
<  the  law.  If  the  Senate  so  concludes,  it  is  our  duty  to  so  declare. 
Aerefore  I  submit  the  following  resolution: 

44  Resolved ,  That  William  Lorimer  was  not  duly  and  legally  elected 
1  a  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
I, ate  of  Illinois.” 

Albert  J.  Beveridge. 


o 


L 

i 

m 


* 


)1st  Congress 
3d  Session . 


•( 


n 

SENATE. 


1  f 

\  Rept.  942, 
)  Part  4. 


ELECTION  OF  SENATOR  LORIMER. 


January  30,  1911. — Ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.  Frazier,  from  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  sub¬ 
mitted  the  following 


VIEWS. 


[To  accompany  S.  Res.  247.] 


It  is  with  great  reluctance  that  1  differ  with  my  colleagues  on  the 
subcommittee,  but  feeling  impelled  to  do  so,  I  beg  leave  to  state 
briefly  my  views  and  conclusions  in  this  case. 

As  I  understand  the  precedents  as  established  by  the  Senate  and  the 
ither  branch  of  Congress,  and  now  recognized  as  the  law  governing 
such  cases,  they  are: 

First.  If  the  proof  establishes  the  fact  that  the  Member  whose  seat 
is  in  question  because  of  alleged  bribery  or  corrupt  practices  resorted 
:o  in  his  election  has  himself  been  guilty  of  bribery  or  corrupt  prac¬ 
tices,  or  knew  of  or  sanctioned  such  corrupt  practices,  he  may  be 
unseated  without  reference  to  the  number  of  votes  thus  corruptly 
nfluenced. 

Second.  If  the  proof  fails  to  show  that  the  Member  knew  of  or  par¬ 
ticipated  in  or  sanctioned  such  corrupt  practices,  then,  in  order  to 
justify  unseating  him,  the  proof  must  show  that  enough  members  of 
the  legislature  voting  for  him  were  bribed  or  influenced  by  corrupt 
practices  that  deducting  their  votes  from  the  total  vote  received  by 
iim  would  reduce  his  vote  below  the  constitutional  majority  required 
for  his  election. 

While  there  are  some  facts  and  circumstances  in  this  case  tending 
to  show  that  Senator  Lorimer  may  have  heard  of  or  known  that  cor¬ 
rupt  practices  were  being  resorted  to,  and  while  Senator  Lorimer 
failed  to  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity  of  going  on  the  stand  as  a 
witness  and  denying  any  such  knowledge  or  sanction  of  corrupt  prac- 
ices,  if  any  such  were  being  practiced,  still  I  am  of  the  opinion  that 
die  testimony  fails  to  establish  the  fact  that  Senator  Lorimer  was  him¬ 
self  guilty  of  bribery  or  other  corrupt  practices,  or  that  he  sanctioned 
ir  was  cognizant  of  the  fact  that  bribery  or  other  corrupt  practices 
were  being  used  by  others  to  influence  votes  for  him. 

This  being  true,  the  question  then  arises,  Was  bribery  or  corrupt 
practices  used  by  others  in  his  behalf  to  influence  votes  for  him;  and, 
if  so,  were  enough  votes  thus  tainted  with  fraud  and  corruptly  influ¬ 
enced  when  excluded  to  reduce  his  vote  below  the  legal  majority 
’equired  for  his  election? 


2 


ELECTION  Ob'  SENATOR  LORIMER. 


The  Legislature  of  Illinois  consisted  of  204  members.  There  were 
present  and  voting  on  the  occasion  of  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer 
202  members.  A  quorum  of  both  houses  being  present,  in  my  opinion, 
he  must  have  received  a  majority  of  all  those  present  and  voting,  or 
102  votes,  to  have  been  elected.  Senator  Lorimer  received  108  votes, 
or  6  more  than  necessary  to  elect. 

■  The  testimony'  taken  by  the  committee  satisfies  me  that  four  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  legislature  were  paid  money  for  voting  for,  or  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  having  voted  for,  Senator  Lorimer.  One  senator  and  three 
representatives  admitted  under  oath  before  the  committee  that  they 
were  paid  money,  and  their  admissions  and  the  facts  and  circumstances 
surrounding  the  transactions  satisfy  me  that  they  received  it  as  a  bribe 
for  or  in  consequence  of  their  votes  for  Senator  Lorimer. 

The  four  self  confessed  bribe  takers  implicate  three  other  members 
of  the  legislature  who  voted  for  Senator  Lorimer  as  the  persons  who 
bribed  them.  The  testimony  satisfies  me  that  the  three  alleged  bribe 
givers  wTere  guilty  of  that  offense.  To  my  mind  the  man  wrho  bribes 
another  is  as  corrupt  as  theone  who  is  bribed,  and  by  his  corrupt  act 
of  bribery  he  demonstrates  the  fact  that  he  is  none  too  honest  to 
receive  a  bribe  if  ottered  him. 

While  the  proof  is  not  clear  or  conclusive  that  these  three  bribe  givers 
were  themselves  bribed  or  corruptly  influenced  to  vote  for  Senator 
Lorimer,  when  I  take  into  consideration  their  corrupt  conduct  as 
bribers  of  others,  together  with  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  sur¬ 
rounding  this  case,  I  can  not  bring  myself  to  agree  with  the  majority 
of  the  subcommittee  that  their  votes  are  free  from  taint  or  corrup¬ 
tion.  These  three  votes  added  to  the  four  confessedly  hribed  would 
make  seven  tainted  votes.  •  Eliminate  them,  and  the  vote  received  by 
Senator  Lorimer  was  less  than  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast. 

As  stated  above,  it  is  with  hesitancy  and  great-  reluctance  that  1 
differ  with  my  colleagues  upon  the  subcommittee,  but  1  have  felt 
impelled  to  do  so  after  a  most  careful  and,  I  trust,  unbiased  study  of 
this  record.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  I  appear  to  stand  alone  in  the 
views  herein  expressed,  I  make  no  recommendation  to  the  committee, 
but  I  do  ask  that  members  of  the  committee  not  members  of  the  sub¬ 
committee  •carefully  read  all  of  the  testimony  before  forming  an 
opinion. 

At  the  time  the  foregoing  statement  of  my  views  and  conclusions 
were  filed  with  the  full  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  it  was 
my  purpose  to  file  in  the  Senate  a  more  elaborate  statement,  setting 
out  in  full  the  reasons  which  led  me  to  the  conclusions  reached, 
was  also  my  purpose  to  otter  with  such  statement  a  resolution  declar¬ 
ing  that  Senator  Lorimer  was  not  legally  elected  Senator  from  the 
State  of  Illinois.  t  * 

Since  then,  to  wit,  on  January  9,  1911,  the  Senator  from  Indiana 
(Mr.  Beveridge)  has  filed  an  extended  statement  of  his  views,  with 
copious  reference  to  the  testimony  and  has  ottered  a  resolution  of  the 
character  referred  to.  Hence  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  at  this  time 
to  file  either  the  more  extended  report  contemplated  or  the  reso¬ 
lution.  I  am  gratified  that  the  Senator  from  Indiana  concurs  in  the 
conclusion  reached  by  me  as  to  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer.  In  the 
resolution  offered  by  him  with  respect  thereto  I  concur. 


o 


